IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1204 of 2009 1. B R A Bihar University through its Registrar, Shri A.K. Srivastava, resident of Damu Chowk, P.S. Quazi Mohammandpur, District – Muzaffarpur 2. The Controller of Examination, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. ………. Appellants/Respondents. Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal, Government Teachers’ Training College, Turki, P.S. Turki, District – Muzaffarpur …….. Opp. Party/Respondents 1st Set 3. Ambika Mandal, son of Yamuna Mandal, resident of village – Katia, P.O. Bunsia, P.S. Rajaun, District – Banka 4. Arun Kumar Mandal, son of Shri Aniruddh Prasad Mandal, resident of village and P.O. Kathaun, P.S. Rajaun, District – Banka 5. Manisha Kumari, wife of Ashwani Kumar, resident of village and PO Kathaun, P.S. - Rajaun District – Banka. 6. Kanhai Mandal, son of Jagdeo Mandal, at P.O. Bansia, PO Kathaun, P.S. Rajaun, District – Banka 7. Yogendra Singh, son of late Samaditya Prasad, resident of village – Bhaluhar, P.O. Banke Bazar, District – Gaya ……….. Respondents – 2nd set Petitioners ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, AC to GP 16 For the Respondents: Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate ----------- 7/ 25.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of C.W.J.C. No. 12496 of 2008. The case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the University granted admission in the Government Teachers Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur for conducting B.Ed. course for the Sessions 1983-84 and examination was conducted in 2 1987. Some of the candidates filed another writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 373 of 1987 for publication of results. The issue was revolving around the genuineness of admission and an enquiry committee was constituted for going into the genuineness of the admission and also the publication of result. The total number of candidates, who appeared in the examination, according to the respondents was 328 and the writ court directed to publish the result within the time prescribed but, with an observation that the University is not bound to publish the result if the candidature of the candidates are found not genuine. It appears that an MJC application was also filed for complying with the order of this Court with regard to publication of result and the said MJC was disposed of directing the State Government to make all efforts to publish the result of genuine candidates. A notice was issued on 5.9.1991 to the persons, who had attended the course for the Sessions 1983-84, to appear before the Special Director (Primary Education) and produce relevant documents in support of their claim. The one man committee had submitted its report on 7.2.1992. On 24.3.1999, the government had referred the matter to the Vigilance for enquiry and according to the parties, the same remained inconclusive till today. The argument advanced before the learned Single Judge by the respondents was that the issue of genuine candidates was already examined by the One Man Committee; still the university had not announced the result of the genuine candidates. It was also 3 submitted that a bench of this court, by its order dated 27.9.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2006, directed for publication of results of the petitioners therein. Further argument was set up before the learned Single Judge that as the government was not satisfied with the One Man Committee report, the government referred the matter to the Vigilance enquiry. It was also urged before the writ court that no document whatsoever was available with the university with regard to the present respondents and the order was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2006 without any counter. It was also contended that the university had its own doubt with regard to the genuineness of the students and their completing the course. The learned Single judge, having heard both sides, directed that the matters have to reach finality and cannot be left in the lurch by the State Government as the report of One Man Committee still subsists and genuineness and validity of the said report cannot be confronted in view of the fact that Vigilance committee enquiry was in vogue to go into the genuineness of the matter and further directed to publish the results of the genuine candidates with further stipulation that the university can seek any clarification from the State Government in case of necessity. The learned Single Judge further left it open to the State Government to decide the modality for identification of those claiming to the covered by the report dated 7.2.1992. Aggrieved by such direction, present L.P.A. has been filed by the university. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants consistently contended before us that there was no piece of document available with the university with regard to the claim for publication of results and in absence of any such document, the university could not make any effort to publish the result. At the first instance, the above contention of learned counsel for the appellants was disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents and this court directed the respondents to produce the admit card of the college where they have taken admission and also followed by hall tickets along with photographs within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, i.e., 4.1.2011. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the respondents filed a counter affidavits enclosing copies of the admit cards of three candidates out of the total candidates. When the matter was taken up by us, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the university took an exception and disputed the genuineness of the admit cards, contained in Annexure G series to the counter affidavit. We also had an occasion to go through the admit cards of Ambika Mandal, Manisha Kumari and Kanhay Prasad Mandal, which per se, do not indicate the date as to when they were issued and also the centre of examination where the candidates were supposed to take their examination. We also make it clear that the admit cards do not contain the date of issuance and the centre of examination and the non-mentioning thereof makes the admit cards non-acceptable and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon for publication of any result. 5 In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. Consequently, the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12496 of 2008 stands quashed and the writ petition is dismissed. The present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. Anil/ (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)