IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15376 of 2010 PRIYANKA ANAND . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 03. 02.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Bihar School Examination Board and the Private respondent no.4. The relief sought is for permission to fill up the examination form and appear at the final examination of the two year Diploma In Education course Session 2008-10 commencing from 27th September, 2010. Permission was denied to the petitioner on the ground that she attained the age of 18 years on 19th of August, 2008 and was thus below 18 years of age as on 1.1.2008 and consequently ineligible for admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made no mis-representation or concealment in her application form and had disclosed her date of birth as 20.8.1990. She did so again during counselings, considering all of which she was granted admission. The counter affidavit of the Principal, makes it apparent more particularly from paragraph- 10 that there has been no mis-representation or concealment by the petitioner. The lapse lay with the 2 College itself in having accepted her application and permitted her to pursue the course despite being ineligible in age for admission. The two counter affidavits filed by the Principal contain no enclosures whatsoever. Learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that it was the Principal of the Collage which did not forward the papers of the petitioner for appearing at the examination. Learned counsel for the Principal submits that since the petitioner was not eligible for admission her papers had not been forwarded. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was not eligible for admission as apparent on facts. But, nonetheless, it appears that without any fraud or mis-representation by her, she was granted admission in the two year course and has completed the course. The controversy has arisen at the time when she was now due to appear at the final examination upon completion of the course. In ,(2009) 1 SCC 610, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, it was noticed at paragraph 15 and 19 as follows :- “15. …….Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfill the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course.” 3 “19. The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible only after he took the first semester examination. He has, however, also been permitted to continue the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognised by the appellant University.” It was for the respondents to check the admission of the petitioner at the entry stage. If the petitioner was granted admission has completed the course, and this Court has already noticed paragraph- 10 of the counter affidavit of the Principal, it is not persuaded to non-suit the petitioner on that ground. Having completed the course, this Court holds that she was now eligible to appear at the examination and the issue of her being short of age by approximately seven to eight months looses its relevance. The Court on 21.9.2010 had passed an interim order that if the petitioner was otherwise eligible except for reason of cancellation of her admission on grounds of under age she should be allowed to appear at the final examination. It appears that this order was placed before the Principal on 23.9.2010. Right or wrong, he laboured under an 4 impression that since the last date for submission of applications with late fine had also expired on 10.9.2010, it was not prudent to forward her papers to the Board considering that the examination was scheduled to commence on 27.9.2010. Noticing the close proximity of events, this court is not persuaded to hold that the Principal acted simplicitor in defiance of the orders of the Court. His actions cannot be stated to be arbitrary but are based on reason which has not been found acceptable by the Court on facts. In the mean time, the final examination for the Sessions 2008-10 have been held. It is not possible for the Court to pass any orders for a singular special examination for the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore held eligible to appear at the next examination to be held for the Session 2009-11. The application is allowed to the extent indicated. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)