IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7283 of 2007 Phul Kumari Tiwary daughter of Late Banarsi Tiwary, R/o Girba Bari, P.S.- Town Thana, Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj, State-Jharkhand. ……… Petitioner. WITH CWJC No.7300 of 2007 Putul Kumari daughter of Budhi Nath Jha, R/o- Bhartiya Colony, P.S.- Town Thana, Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj, State-Jharkhand. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretary namely Binoda Nand Jha, having its office at Sinha Library Road, Patna. 2. Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna. 4. Principal, Primary Teacher Education College, Barhet, Sahebganj. …………. Respondents. ----------- 05 24.02.2009 The petitioner had undergone a course of Primary Teacher’s Training. Having completed the course, she sat in the said certificate examination as conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in the year 1994. She passed but her results were withheld for want of certain documents. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that all the documents were available with the college, in question, but her results have been wrongly withheld. Institution has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Board has called for certain documents with regard to several students through special messenger. They had sent documents in relation to the petitioners Phul Kumari Tiwari and one Putul Kumari. The Board retained paper in respect of Putul Kumari but returned all the papers in 2 respect of Phul Kumari Tiwari. The Board has filed a counter affidavit followed by a supplementary counter affidavit. They had admitted that they have called for documents of various students to verify their genuiness and have not received papers with regard to Phul Kumari Tiwari. They have received those papers in respect of Putul Kumari, whose results and certificates have been issued. Thus, it is clear that the only problem is with regard to the petitioner, Phul Kumari Tiwari, whose papers that institution had sent for reexamination and the Board refused to accept. Be that as it may, the casualty is with the student. As the institution is in a position to send the same again, the institution must send the same and the Board must verify and declare the result within a period of two months from today. I cannot leave this judgment without noticing as what are the motives of the Board in trying to examine the bona fide of a student after permitting the student to take the examination and declaring the result. All this exercise is required to be done before permission to sit in examination is to be given and not thereafter. Once the student is permitted to take examination and he succeeds therein then such enquiries normally would be redundant. With these directions and observations, the two writ applications are disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)