IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5030 of 2011 1. BHOLA PRASAD GUPTA, S/O LATE LAKSHMI PRASAD GUPTA, R/O MOHALLA-BHAWANI NAGAR, WARD NO.13, SAHARSA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 2. CHHATU CHOUDHARY, S/O SRI DOMI CHOUDHARY, R/O MOHALLA-HATIYA GACHHI, SAHARSA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 3. LALAN SHARMA, S/O SRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, R/O MOHALLA-SHIVPURI, SAHARSI, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SAHARSA. 4. GAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O SRI JAI NARAYAN SAH, R/O VILLAGE MAHISADHO, P.S.-MAHISHI, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 5. SHASHU BHUSHAN SINGH, S/O SRI GUNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LAHUAR, P.S.- MAHISHI, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 6. HAMENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE NAND KISHORE YADAV, R/O VILLAGE SABAILA, P.S.-SAUR BAZAR, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 7. SANYAM KUMARI, W/O HARIOM NARAYAN PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE KANU TOLA, P.S.-SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 8. RANDHIR BISHWAS, S/O SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR BISHWAS, R/O VILLAGE TERASI, P.S.-MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 9. DAYANATH SINGH, S/O SRI LAKSHMAN PRASAD SINGH, R/O MOHALLA RADHA KRISHNA NAGAR SAHARSA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR-CUM- CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SIMULTALA AWASIYA VIDYALAYA, JAMUI. 2. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR-CUM-SECRETARY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SIMULTALA AWASIYA VIDYALAYA, JAMUI. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI-CUM-CHAIRMAN, MANAGING COMMITTEE, SIMULTALA AWASIYA VIDYALAYA, JAMUI. 4. PRINCIPAL, SIMULTALA AWASIYA VIDYALAYA, JAMUI. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 25.03.2011 In this writ application petitioners have prayed for quashing of the second result 2 of the Preliminary Entrance Examination published on 13.03.2011 in daily newspaper for admission in Simultala Awasiya Vidyalaya, Jamui, as contained in Annexure-4, and for further direction to the respondents to act on the basis of the Preliminary Entrance Examination result published on 06.03.2011 on the official website of the School and to permit the petitioners, who were declared passed in the Preliminary Entrance Examination, to appear in the mains examination which is going to be held on 27.03.2011. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had appeared in the Entrance Test and in the preliminary result, which was put on the official website of the School on 06.03.2011, they were declared pass and thus they became eligible to appear in the mains examination. However, when the final result was published in the newspaper on 13.03.2011 they did not find their names among the successful candidates. Hence, petitioners filed this writ application with the aforesaid prayer. The case was taken up on 18.03.2011 3 and learned counsel for the respondents was asked to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the case. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which, it is stated that the entire task of holding the qualifying test for admission in the School was assigned to a Firm from outside the State. The Firm held the examination which was based on OMR process. The result was prepared and the Firm communicated the result to the School which was put on the official website of the School on 06.03.2011. However, immediately thereafter the Firm informed the Committee that there has been a mistake in the preparation of the result due to some defect in the software in which all the papers had not been evaluated and only on the basis of evaluation of part one of answer-sheet the result had been published. The Firm, therefore, withdrew the result and rectified the mistake in the software and prepared the result again which was put on the official website of the School on 10.03.2011 and published in the newspaper on 13.03.2011. Thus, it appears that only due to 4 mistake in the computer, the correct result was not put on the website of the School on 06.03.2011 and mistake was later on corrected and the correct result was put on the website of the School on 10.03.2011 and published in the newspaper on 13.03.2011. This Court does not find any error in the process as the mistake was not caused due to any human intervention and as per the counter affidavit was caused only because of technical problem in the computer software. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. However, since due to wrong publication of result on an earlier date, some doubt may have arisen in the minds of the concerned students whose name did not find place in the subsequent list, this Court, for the purposes of removing their doubt, grants them liberty to move the District Magistrate, jamui, who is the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the School, with a request to allow them to check up the marks allotted to them or to any other candidate whose name was included in the list 5 put on the website of the School on 06.03.2011, but later on was not included in the final list put on the website on 10.03.2011. If such applications are filed by any of the candidates, the District Magistrate shall fix up an appropriate fee for the purpose and on deposit of such fee the relevant documents and answer-sheet as requested in the application shall be made available to the applicant in the office of District Magistrate himself for perusal on a date and time fixed which shall not be later than one week from the date of application. After perusal, the concerned applicant shall be at liberty to point out the District Magistrate any anomaly which may be detected in such scrutiny. In view of the orders passed in the main writ application, the intervention applications are rejected. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)