IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.311 of 2011 1. Kedar Pandey, Health And Physical Training College Sadhnapuri, Patna-1, through its Principal Ram Niwash Sharma, son of Late Dineshwar Sharma, Resident of Alkapuri, Gardanibagh, Near Road No.17, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna. 2. Ram Niwash Sharma, son of Late Dineshwar Sharma, Resident of Alkapuri, Gardanibagh, Near Road No.17, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna …. Petitioners. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar Through its Secretary cum-Commissioner, Art Culture and Youth Affairs Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Joint Secretary, Art Culture and Youth Affairs Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, Art Culture and Youth Affairs Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretgary,Patna-17. 5. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Pata-17. 6.The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board,Patna-17. ----------- 5. 06.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar School Examination Board. The writ petition preferred by the appellant who claimed to be an institution imparting training in physical education course has been dismissed by the writ court, mainly because the claim for holding another examination for the so called left out candidates or failed candidates belonging to the Sessions 1986-87 to 1993-94 for C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. course was not found acceptable in absence of any student having made such a claim. In fact the writ court has doubted the very existence of the institution because after coming into force of National council of Technical Education Act (in short, N.C.E.T. Act), the institution did not seek any recognition and is out of business after the Session 1993-94. On behalf of the appellant, reliance has been placed upon 2 the two judgments of the Apex Court contained in Annexure-5 & 6. Earlier judgment contained in Annexure-5 is dated 11th September 2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4190 of 2007 (Sunil Kumar Parimal and another Vs. State of Bihar & others). The other judgment is dated 10th March, 2011 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 2416 of 2011 (Kumari Ranjana Mishra and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others). With profound respect to the aforesaid two judgments, it is found that both the judgments were at the instance of aggrieved students. It is further noticed that the later judgment in the case of Kumari Ranjana Mishra (supra) has allowed the claim of the students in question by placing full reliance upon and following the law laid down in the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal. Hence, we have perused the said judgments with care. An interim order passed at the instance of an institution Bhagwan Budha Prathmik Tech. Training College Vs. State of Bihar and others , contained in Annexure-6 has been cited but the final judgment in that case finds mention in Para-5 of the judgment in the case of Kumari Ranjan Mishra which shows that the law laid down in that case was to the effect that the State Government had no authority to issue an order in 2007 granting recognition to an institution for the period 1987-95. The judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal related to the claim of the students for holding examination for the Sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 for which admittedly no examination was ever held by the Bihar School Examination Board. In that context, the statutory duty of the Board to conduct various examinations flowing from Rule 7 of the Bihar School Examination Board Rules, 1963 was noticed and the same rule has also been extracted in the case of Ranjana 3 Mishra. It was further noticed that there had been correspondences between the Board and the concerned Department of the State Government for holding examination for the Sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 for the then recognized colleges and on 18th December 1999, the department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Govt. of Bihar had forwarded a list of eligible candidates who had been in C.P.Ed. & D.P.Ed. courses, to the Secretary of the Respondent Board. The latter made further queries from the deputy Secretary of the concerned Department through letter dated 26th June 2001 and pointed out that list of candidates of only two colleges, namely, Tirhut College of Physical Education, Muzaffarpur and Urs Line Women Physical Education College, Lohardugga (now in Jharkhand) had been received by the Board and not the list of students from 3 other remaining colleges. From the representation filed by the appellant before the Secretary of the concerned department, Govt. of Bihar dated 23rd April 2006 (Annexure-4), it is apparent that the students of the petitioner institution upto the Sessions 1993-94, which was the last sessions granted recognition, had taken the examination in the year 1995. But allegedly some students failed and some did not take the examination and on that plea, in 2006 the institution made a demand for supplementary examination for students of this institution. Admittedly, the examination of the students of he appellant had been held by the Board for the students of the last Session 1993-94. Thereafter there is no material to show that any list of candidate belonging to this institution was ever forwarded by the State Government to the Board for taking further examination. In this 4 background the doubt expressed by the writ court about the very existence of this institution cannot be said to be without any basis. So far there is no law that the Board has to keep arranging examination for failed students or for those who do not appear in spite of opportunity. Statutory duty of the Board had already been discharged in so far the students of the present institution are concerned. So far equity for the concerned students is concerned, the matter would have been different had they moved this Court soon after 1995 examination for holding another examination or supplementary examination, but so far no student of petitioner institution appears to have moved this Court even after lapse of so many years, hence, it would not be possible to grant any relief even on account of equity after such inordinate delay. This court finds no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Shivaji Pandey,J.)