IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17101 of 2009 1. DEGREE COLLEGE,BAGAHA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL BABUAJI SINGH, S/O LATE PARMESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILL- GANDAK COLONY, BAGAHA 2, P.S- BAGAHA, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN 2. AKANCHHA KUMARI D/O VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, R/O VILL- PATKHAULI, P.O- NARAIPUR, P.S- BAGAHA 2, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) BIHAR VIDYALAYA PARIKSHA SAMITI (BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD), PATNA, BIHAR 3. BIHAR VIDYALAYA PRIKSHA SAMITI (UCCH MADHYAMIK) THROUGH SECRETARY, BUDDH MARG, PATNA ----------- 2/ 21/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State, for the Bihar School Examination Board and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervener. The relief sought in the writ application is for issuance of OMR form for the Intermediate examination to be held in 2010 with regard to the students of the Degree College, Bagaha. The institution has a degree course and Intermediate course. The present discussion is confined to the Intermediate course and has no bearing whatsoever on the degree aspect of the education. The present petitioner no. 1 came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 14321 of 2009. This Court noticed that the institution in question had recognition for the Sessions 2006-08/2007-09. It had been considered unrecognized for the Sessions 2008-2010. It now transpires that the institution in question had been told not to take admission for the Sessions 2008-2010. 2 This Court had observed that an institution is either recognized or it is not recognized. There cannot be a half way house when the institution is recognized for certain Sessions and not for others. It is nobody’s case that the recognition granted to the institution in question has been cancelled. The Board was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in pursuance of which the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 has been passed declining to issue the OMR forms to the ‘institution in question’. The order impugned is not in accordance with the directions of this Court and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. There is no discussion in the order of the recognition granted for the earlier Sessions, when and why it came to be cancelled, and if it was not cancelled why was admission debarred for one Session etc. The petitioners have further relied upon an inspection report dated 1.11.2007 submitted by the Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, which has not at all been considered. This Court is therefore satisfied that the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 is completely non-speaking in nature hindering judicial review and is, therefore, fit to be set aside. It is accordingly ordered. 3 That, however, does not appear resolve the issue in view of internecine fight between the petitioner no. 1 and the intervener. While the petitioner no. 1 urges that his is the correct ‘institution in question’ of which he is the Principal, the intervener submits that it is the institution being run by the intervener which is genuine. There cannot be two institutions run at the same place in the same name under one recognition. Obviously one of them has to be erroneous. These are matters of fact to be examined by the authorities. The manner in which the Director has dealt the matter leaves this Court far from satisfied. At issue is the career of the students who have to appear at the ensuing Intermediate examination in 2010. This Court is primarily concerned with the fate of the genuine students and not the fight for supremacy for the post of Principal between the petitioner and the Intervener. The conduct of the Board can hardly be said to be conducive to aid academic environment. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar. He shall be at liberty to have an investigation, conducted on the spot by either himself or by an authority other than that of the Board. The Secretary may then grant hearing to the petitioner and 4 the Intervener both, based on this factual report that may be available when both sides shall be given equal opportunity to meet the report. Let the Secretary then pass an appropriate order identifying the ‘institution in question’ to which the OMR form is to be issued. This Court requests the Secretary to complete the entire exercise and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The Secretary within such time may also pass appropriate orders for issuance of OMR forms in the event that time for any deposit of fees etc. may have elapsed in the meantime. The application stands allowed with directions. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)