COURT OF CHHAmSSARH AT BILASPUR KrVISION BENCt-l HON'BLE SHRI,7ASM:SHBH<4fcLA,Ag.,C3'. HON'BLE SHRI OIUFtRAOSAHEB OESHMUKH J. Writ Appeal No.285 of2007 w :U) Veri 3. 4, 6. Chhattisgarh Bpar'd of Secondary Educdtion Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Shivnath t.ahre, soh of Ramriath Ld'tre^Aged aBout 30 yeoi-s, resident ;6f Vitlcge Mudpar^ Ppst Boshcuta. Tashil Pam9ar'h DjstriG'i' jCTijgir - . Oiampc (Chhattisgarh) Dineshwar Madhukar, sonof Budhfam AAtKihukar, cged about 19 yea'S, resident af Vi1lage and Post Sasaha^ Tahsil ;Pamgarh, jbistrict J'arygir' - Champa (Chhatfte9<a'h5 PEITnOlOERS 'Pr'incipal, Gmerwnervt • l-iigheRJ Secondary Sishool, iSqsaha^ Distrjc'tiJ Jttnjgir' - Champs ^KhattiS9arh) Shri IP Pate!; Center .1-iead, SoverTimeiTf'WigherSecondarySchaol; 'FanoUd,i'Oistrict .Janjgir - :£'hcM'npd| (Cl'rtidttisgach) • .Suls-Divisional M<^istrate, Pfflngat'h,! (Eiistnct .^' l' Janjgir ', - ' (%dmpa| (Chhottisgiyh) : , : ' • . .;, ^| Bldck Education Qfficer, .District^ ^Janjgir : - (aitiattisgarh) itt RESRONUBrrSNO^TOS ^•..:. • .",• ^.'. / .^ » i:-'^ .^ ,:....' ..:,- ^.:./ '•• :,'\ , Section 2(1} of'rtiesShtiattis^isn'hWtghiCwpt 15ivjsiJBnSBenihllM®t' ; • ^ ,(! llii :i\ nl; m lilllt -2-- Present : Shri HB A9rawal, Senor Advocate with tAs Sangita Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri 6D Vaswani, Sovemment Advocote for the State. Orat apdef (Passed on 13*h November, ?007) Tlie following ordet' of the Court was pcssed by Hon'bie Jagdish Bhdlc, ^9 C.J: ^/'\,' :. . ^ This wrif appeal arjses out of Judgment of iearned Sirgle Judge datedS October, 2007, wherein a direction has been jssued to hold fresh examination at the earlieSt qs the result' of the examination f6f Higher Seconciary School Certificate held at the centre i.e. l-iigher' Secondary School, Sascha, Jarygir' was conceiled on account of mass copying. Very mild direction has been issued by fearned Single Judge for holding fresh examination for theabove centre,at the edrliest. Learned counsel appearing for the dppellant submits that the Coiirt has become functusofficioisv&acx.w^w^f, the direction contained in the judgment could not have been issued. However,learned senior- counsel for the appelldnt failed to substantiate how fhe Court has becQme ftilKfus officio. We are of the considered opinion that to no stretch of imaginction, the Court can beco e funcfus officip. Accor'ding!y, no interference is warranted in the impugned order- and the cppeal is therefore dismissed. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Iti^dmQ I 1^ i