IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.96 of 2010 1. Amar Kumar Mahto. son of Sri Jagannath Mahto, resident of village- Nagarnausa, P.S. Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda. 2. Ameriesh Koeri, son of Sri Hari Prasad Koiri, resident of Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut, Distt.- Nalanda. ….. Petitioners….Appellants. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Union Of India, through the Director General, Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 3. Director, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhavan, Patna. 4. Sri Sanjay Kumar, Examination Controller, Directorate of Employment and Training, Digha Ghat, Patna. …….Respondents….Respondents. ----------- 06- 25 .01.2011 Heard Mr. Abhinay Raj for the appellants, Mr. Jasbir Singh Arora, learned Standing Counsel No.6 for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, and Mr. Sarva Deo Singh for respondent no.2. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.12369 of 2001 have preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and it has been observed therein that the writ petitioners were enrolled in the course in question beyond the sanctioned strength of 40 students and has, therefore, declined to pass orders for issuance of final certificates to them. 2. This litigation has a chequered history. The appellants had joined two years training course for the 2 session 1995-97 in B.K. Institute of Technology, Patna, in the Fitter course. The institute is owned and run by the Government of Bihar, but the examination is held by respondent no.2. After having completed the course covering a period of two years, the two appellants appeared at the examination, passed the course, and were granted their respective provisional certificates. The authorities refused to issue final certificates, leading to the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 16.10.2001, on the ground that enrolment of the two appellants was beyond the sanctioned strength of 40 seats for the course. It is relevant to state that none had appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners at the time of dismissal of the same. The writ petitioners, therefore, preferred an appeal in this Court which was disposed of with the liberty to them to file a review petition. The two appellants herein, therefore, preferred Civil Review No.73 of 2002, wherein they raised the contention that, in the absence of learned counsel for the writ petitioners in C.W.J.C.12369 of 2001, on 16.10.2001, the learned Single Judge could have either adjourned the matter or dismissed it for non-prosecution. He could not have disposed of the matter on merits. The review petition 3 has been rejected by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 27.10.2009, leading to the present appeal. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not wish to go into the question whether or not it was open to the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition to dispose of the same on merits in the absence of learned counsel for the writ petitioners. We instead proceed to consider the matter on merits. It appears to us that the two appellants herein had joined the course in excess of the sanctioned strength of students for the course. However, we do not find any whisper on behalf of any one of the parties in the protracted proceedings that the appellants had, in getting themselves admitted to the course, engaged themselves in any act of fraud, misrepresentation, or the like. Once we so hold, it follows as a matter of corollary that the authorities were entirely responsible for admission of the two appellants beyond the sanctioned strength. In such a situation, it would be grossly unjust to deprive the appellants of the fruits of the course. The respondent authorities, by their unjust action, have already deprived the appellants of a 4 meaningful life ever since 1998, when the final certificates had become due to them. We are in no doubt that the appellants, being young ones and without any blemish, cannot be deprived of the degrees. We find that the respondents were wholly responsible for their admission to the course and, therefore, non-issuance of the final certificates to the appellants would be high unjust and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the appellants rightly relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376), and Guru Nanak Deo University Vs. Sanjay kumar Katwal & Anr., reported in JT 2008 (11) SC 543, wherein it has been held that if the authorities had adequate time and opportunity to unravel the mistake, not having done the same, the candidate cannot suffer. We are clearly of the view that the delay in issuance of certificates is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to issue final certificates to the appellants in accordance with their performance. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants prays for suitable compensation. We are informed at the Bar that the appellants are today 36 years of age, and belong to the 5 reserved category of O.B.C., and still have age left to take their chance for appointment in government service. Learned counsel rightly invites our attention to office order dated 13.11.2000 (Annexure 3 to the appellants’ supplementary affidavit in the present appeal), which acknowledges that certificates have not been issued to other candidates from 1991 till 1997. Therefore, the Controller of Examinations was directed to ensure issuance of certificates to all successful candidates on war footing. It is evident from the said order dated 13.11.2000 of the State Government that the responsibility for issuance of certificates is of the State of Bihar and its functionaries. In that view of the matter, it is evident that the present appellants belong to 1995-97 batch, and the final certificates have not been issued to them till date, and 16 to 17 precious years of their lives have been wasted due to arbitrary action of the State Government. We have not been informed by the respondents as to under what circumstances more number of candidates were admitted to this course than the sanctioned strength, and what action was taken against the responsible officials. In the circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice if the State of Bihar pays them a sum of 6 Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) each by way of compensation which shall carry interest @ 6% with effect from 1.1.1999 till the date of payment. It is consistent with the judgment dated 17.12.2009, passed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S K Katriar, J.) was a party, in L.P.A.No.127 of 2006 (The Union of India v. Brajesh Yadav & Anr.). 5. The appeal is allowed. In view of the nature of relief granted to the appellants, we pass no order for costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/