IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3526 of 2011 Prem Nandan Singh, Son of Sri Harinandan Singh “Harsh” R/O Village- Hempur, P.O.-Dharampur, P.S.-Nauhatta, District – Saharsa. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Chairman Budhmarg Patna. 2. Secretary Bihar School Examination Board Budhmarg Patna. 3. Examination Controller Bihar School Examination Board Budhmarg Patna. …..Respondents. ---------------------------------- 04/ 30.08.2011 The writ application of the petitioner lacks bona fide for many a reasons. In fact, there are even suppression of facts if not mis-statement as would be evident from the later part of the order. Petitioner was stated to be a student of S.M.Z.A. College of Physical Training at Bahera in the District of Darbhanga. He joined the said institution as a regular student for pursuing a degree in Physical Education (D.P. Ed.). The session in question was 1993-94 in which examination was conducted in the year 1995 and result published according to the petitioner, in the year 1998. He has stated in the writ application that due to some dispute between the College and respondents, petitioner was not supplied results till 2006 and when he got his marksheets in 2006 he realize that he 2 had failed by only one mark. The writ, therefore, has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to grant one grace marks to him and declare him to have passed. The first objection which has been taken by the Counsel representing Bihar School Examination Board is that in terms of the regulation relating to the examination in question there is no provision for granting any grace marks and in a similar matter raised earlier before this Court by one Sanjay Kumar Gupta that writ application was dismissed as the Court refused to give any direction to give three grace marks. The said order is Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit. The other aspect which has been stated by the Counsel representing the Board is that it is a suppression of fact that the petitioner had not been supplied his marksheet or result till 2006. Results had already been announced and forwarded to the College in question well in time which included the original marksheet of all the candidates including that of the petitioner. The petitioner has obtained a duplicate marksheet which has been annexed as Annexure- 3 2 stating that this result came to his knowledge in the year 2006. In support of such statement even the Challan filed by the petitioner for obtaining the duplicate marksheet has been produced before the Court. This will remain on record. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner of deliberately suppressing the fact obviously to take advantage in the case since a long time had elapsed between the declaration of the result and when relief of the kind is being sought on the basis of Annexure-2, obtained by him to make out a case, coupled with the fact that a Bench of this Court earlier rejected such a prayer in similar circumstances then there is no reason to differ with the same and allow the benefit to the petitioner which is not available or provided for in the regulation of the examination board. It’s a fit case, which deserves to be rejected. The Court was inclined to impose some kind of cost to discourage this kind of adventurism by the petitioner but taking into consideration that probably he is still unemployed and this was the reason for moving 4 the court to get a foothold in the job market, the Court takes a lenient view. The writ application is dismissed. kksinha/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)