AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This application has been filed seeking quashing of a
notice issued by the Bihar School Examination Board (Senior
Secondary) (hereinafter referred to as the Board), whereby the
petitioner''s result of having passed Intermediate examination in the
year 2004 bearing Roll Code 5109 and Roll No. 10069 has been
cancelled.
What is not in dispute is that the petitioner had taken
admission in Intermediate Arts Courts in C.M. College, Darbhanga
for the academic Session 1999-2001. He was enlisted with the Bihar
State Intermediate Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) in
the year 1999 itself. He passed the Intermediate examination held by
the Council in the year 2001. In the year 2002, he again got himself
admitted in Intermediate Science Course in L.C.S. College,
Darbhanga, and appeared for the Intermediate Science Examination in
the year 2004. He was declared successful and issued mark-sheet and
certificate accordingly. The said result of 2004 has been cancelled by
the Board, which is the successor Body of the Council on the ground
that the petitioner''s subsequent enlistment in the year 2002 with the
Council for the purpose of pursuing Intermediate Course again was
impermissible.
The said order is being assailed by the petitioner mainly
on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that once the Council
allowed the petitioner to appear for the examination, it was not within
the jurisdiction of the Council or the successor Body, i.e., the Board to
cancel the result. It has been submitted with reference to Section 3(10)
of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 that power is
there of the Council to grant or refuse permission to a candidate to
appear for the examination. The said power cannot be used in any
event to cancel the result after candidate has already appeared at the
examination and declared passed.
He has also relied on Supreme Court''s decision in case
of Sri Kirshan Vs. Kurukshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC 376) and
decisions of this Court in case of Punam Kumari Vs.
L.N.M.University, Darbhanga reported in 1993(1) PLJR 609 and in
case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. B.N.Mandal, University reported
in 2010(1) PLJR 62, in support of his contention that once the
petitioner was allowed to appear for examination, his result should not
allowed to be cancelled.
A plea has also been taken on behalf of the petitioner
that he was not served with any notice of show cause by the Board
prior to issuance of the impugned notice in the Newspaper.
The Board has filed counter affidavit and supplementary
counter affidavit to justify the action taken by the Board. It has been
stated with reference to Rule 12(10) of the Bihar Intermediate
Education Council Rules, 1994 that enlistment of the petitioner was
valid for the Intermediate Course for academic Session 1999-2001,
2000-2002 and 2001-2003. The petitioner got himself enlisted again
to pursue I.Sc. Course from a different College for the academic
Session 2002-2004, which is not permissible.
On the basis of what has been pleaded in the writ
application and affidavits filed on behalf of the parties and upon
examining the statutory provisions, which have been referred to by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, I am satisfied that
the petitioner could not have been allowed to be admitted in I.Sc.
Course after having passed the Intermediate examination within three
years since second enlistment was not permissible under the Rules as
has been referred to above since first enlistment was already existing.
It seems that the petitioner managed to get himself admitted and
enlisted again, contrary to the statutory provisions.
Submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the
Board does not have the power to cancel the result because it has only
power either to allow or refuse a candidate to appear for examination
is wholly misconceived. If the Board finds any result or certificate
issued in favour of a candidate to hav e obtained fraudulently contrary
to the statutory provisions, the Board will be well within its
jurisdiction to cancel the certificate or the result.
The judgment of the Supreme Court''s decision in case
of Sri Krishna (supra), has no application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In the present case the petitioner
has managed to obtain certificate of having passed Intermediate
examination, which examination he had already passed for the
academic Session 1999-2001, contrary to the statutory provisions.
The petitioner, as a matter of fact, cannot be allowed to
continue with two certificates of having passed Intermediate
Examination one for the Session 1999-2001 and other for the Session
2002-2004. This being legally impermissible, the submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. For the same
reason, the decisions of this Court in case of Punam Kumari (supra)
and Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra), are also not applicable in the facts
and circumstances of the case since the present case involves question
of duplicity of obtaining same qualification from the Council/Board,
which is impermissible under the statutory provisions.
The plea that there has been inordinate delay in
cancelling the result is also not acceptable for the purpose of granting
relief sought for in the present application since I have held that the
petitioner could not possess two certificates of having passed
Intermediate examination within the period as indicated above.
This application has no merit and it is, accordingly,
dismissed.