IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1589 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 1095/2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 8790 OF 20190 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1589 of 2010 ============================================== RITIK RAJ, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, SON OF SHRI MAHAVIT PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GHORGHAT, POLICE STATION-BARIARPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER - Appellant (s) . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETTITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS, SECRETARY, I.A.S. ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIR PORT, PATNA-14 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION(DCECE-2008), BIHAR CONBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, I.A.S. ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIR-PORT, PATNA-14. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHINC, BHALGALPUR - Respondent(s) . ============================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADV. For the Respondent No.1 to 4: Mr. SHAILENDRA KUMAR JHA, A.C. TO SC-9 For the Respondent No.2 & 3: Mr. VIKAS KUMAR, ADV. ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 2 01.10.2010 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 8790 of 2010:- Heard the learned advocates for the parties. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 29 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re.Letters Patent Appeal No.No.1589 of 2010 This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 23rd July 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1095 of 2010. The present petitioner is a student. In the year 2008, he appeared for entrance examination for admission to a diploma course in Government Polytechnic. At the time of counselling, his handwriting was not bearing on that of the answer sheet. There being some doubt, the handwritings were sent for examination by Forensic Science Laboratory. The handwriting expert opined that the writing on the answer sheet and the specimen writing did not match. In the 3 meantime, the appellant was given permission of admission to Diploma in Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Bhagalpur. In view of the opinion of the handwriting expert, the admission of the appellant in Government Polytechnic has been cancelled on 31st December 2009 under Memorandum No. 3324 dated 31.12.2009 . Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 1095 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition. Therefore, present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgments to submit that on the sole evidence of handwriting expert conviction cannot be recorded. We are afraid relying of judgments in criminal matters where the right to liberty of an accused is at stake cannot be applied in the summary inquires lying before us. Once there was a doubt that it was a case of impersonation and that doubt was strengthened by the opinion of the handwriting expert, the respondents were justified in cancelling the admission of the appellant. 4 In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition, no case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Bibhash ( R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)