IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ---------- Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.790 of 2011 --------- Harendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Sakaldeo Singh, Secretary, Anugrah Narayan Singh College, Motihari, Present resident of Mohalla- Chandmari P.S. Motihari Town, permanent resident of Village & P.O. Chaita, P.S. Pakadidayal, District- East Champaran.. Petitioner Versus 1.Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha son of not known. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Budhmarg, Patna 2. Mr. A.K.P. Yadav son of not known. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The State of Bihar through Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, the Principal Secretary, H.R.D.... Respondents with M.J.C. No. 919 of 2011 ------ 1. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Shri Surendra Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Sirsa, P.S. Muffasil Motihari, District- East Champaran, Motihari...................................... Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar School Examination Board through Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha,the Secretary, Budhmarg, Patna 2. Mr.A.K.P. Yadav, the Chairman, Bihar school Examination Board, Bihar, Patna. 3. Mr. Narbdeshwar Lal, Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. Mr.Radha Kant Prasad, Subdivisional Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 5. Harendra Kumar Singh, Secretary, resident of Mohalla- Chandmari, P.S. Motihari Town, Distt- East Champaran,Motihari. 6. Arbind Kumar Singh, Incharge Principal, presently residing in the Campus of Sri Anugrah Narain Singh, College, East 2 Champaran, Motihari 7. The State of Bihar through Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department,Bihar, Patna.......................................... Opp. Parties ----------- 7. 15.09.2011 In our order dated 25th August 2011, we had taken a serious view of some material mis-statement in the stand earlier taken by the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board. We had, therefore, observed that before considering the apology tendered by the Secretary of the Board, we would like to see whether the plea that wrong facts were earlier stated on account of misleading notes by some officials is a genuine explanation or not and for that we had granted opportunity to the Secretary to examine the said plea and if it is found correct, then appropriate action should be taken against the concerned employee for giving wrong facts and notes. In compliance of the earlier order, the Secretary is present in Court. In Para-20 of a further show cause on behalf of the present Secretary, it has been clearly stated that after going through the file the act of negligence and dereliction of duty came to light and only on account of such negligence the deponent had earlier sworn affidavit to support a show cause with the facts which were not correct. 3 In the following paragraph, it has been made clear that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the concerned employees and explanation has also been called for from the concerned Deputy Secretary. The entire staff of the College Establishment Section have been transferred to other Sections of the Board, vide order dated 13th September 2011. In view of aforesaid fact the apology tendered by the Secretary is accepted. However, he is expected to be more cautious in such matters in future. On merits of the contempt petition, it is found that by an order dated 23rd August 2011, the Board has considered the inspection report and recommendation received in respect of College in question and has granted recognition from the Sessions 2011-13, i.e. for three Sessions as per details in the order dated 23rd August 2011 which is Annexure-B to the show cause filed on behalf of O.P.No.1, the Secretary on 24th August 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strong grievance against the order contained in Annexure-B. According to him, the recognition granted does not meet the expectation of the petitioner because according to him, the recognition should 4 have been from earlier date in much wider term suitable for an already existing College. Although the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that alleged errors and illegalities in Annexure-B amount to violation of the earlier order of this Court to decide the matter of recognition in accordance with law, we are not persuaded to accept that any such illegality is deliberate, even if some illegality is found at a later stage. Hence, in the facts of the case, the contempt application is finally disposed of. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise the grievance with respect to Annexure-B before the Board or pursue their remedy through an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)