Sunil Kumar Das Vs. Bihar School Examination Board and anr.

Sunil Kumar Das vs Bihar School Examination Board and anr.

Disposition Petition disposed of Court Jharkhand Decided Jul 23, 2001

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518233

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518233
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
Decided On: Jul 23, 2001
Case Number: CWJC Nos. 1358 of 1999 (R) and 2213 of 2000 (R)
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Petition disposed of

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education - Examination--Declaration of result--Primary Teachers Training examination--Recognition of institution cancelled vide letter No. 208 dated 15th April 1993--Petitioners completed their study for Session 1991-93 and found eligible to appear in the Primary Teachers' Training Examination and were permitted--T...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Petition disposed of

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar Das

Advocate M.M. Pan, Adv.

Respondent

Bihar School Examination Board and anr.

Advocate Amareshwar Sahay, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002(50)BLJR330

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........vide letter no. 208, dated 15th april, 1993. 7. from the stand taken by the respondents it will be evident that the institution in question remain recognised till 15th april, 1993. such recognition having not cancelled from retrospective date. there appears to be no difficulty for the respondents to publish result of the students completed their sessions prior to 15th april, 1993, though examination held later on because of inaction on the part of the board. 8. so far as students whose sessions completed after 15th april, 1993 or those who have been admitted after 15th april. 1993, they have been studied from a de-recognised institution, there is no justification to publish the result of such students. 9. having regard to the facts and circumstances, the students who completed the course in the session 1991-93, they having completed studies from a recognised institution, the respondents cannot refuse to publish the result. 10. accordingly, i direct the respondents to publish the result of students who appeared in the teachers training examination from spg mission primary teachers training college, (male), ranchi having completed studies in the session 1991-93 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. so far as the students, who completed studie for the sessions 1992-94, are concerned, no such relief can be granted.12. both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations anddirections. 13. petitions disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. In both the cases as common prayer made for publication of result of primary teachers training examination, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner Sunil Kumar Das of CWJC No. 1358, 1999 (R) was a regular student of SPG Mission Primary Teachers Training College, (Male), Ranchi and stated to have completed study for the session 1991-93. He having found eligible was also allowed to appear in the Primary Teachers' Training Examination held from 2nd August, 1994 by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

3. So far as petitioner Miss Nimunti Soy and others of CWJC 2213/2000 (R) are concerned, according to them, they were also regular student of SPG Mission Primary Teachers Training College, (Male), Ranchi and completed studies for the session 1991-93 and 1992-94. They being eligible and suitable were also allowed to appear in the Primary Teachers Training Examination held since 2nd August, 1994, conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

4. The grievance of the petitioners of both the writ petitions is that the respondents have not published their result inspite of the repeated requests, though the result of students, appeared from similarly situated Colleges, have been published.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board in CWJC No. 2213/2000 R. It is stated that the SPG Mission Primary Teachers Training College, (Male), Ranchi were allotted Roll Code 1107 for appearance of the students in the Primary Teachers' Training Examination for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94. The examination was held from 2nd August, 1994, conducted along with the students of the sessions 1989-91 to 1992-94, has also not been disputed. The main plea taken that the Government of Bihar vide memo No. 102, dated 13th June, 1998 circulated a communique published in the newspaper by the Department of Primary, Secondary and Mass Education in which the name of SPG Mission Primary Teachers Training College (Male), Ranchi was shown as de-recognised institution, the recognition having withdrawn.

6. From bare perusal of letter No. 102, dated 13th June, 1998 it will be evident that a copy of press communique published in the newspaper on 8th January, 1994 was circulated. The result of the students appeared from the de-recognised institution were withheld. In the press communique, dated 8th January, 1994, the name of SPG Mission Primary Teachers Training College (Male), Ranchi was shown at serial No. 68 and it was shown that the recognition have been cancelled vide letter No. 208, dated 15th April, 1993.

7. From the stand taken by the respondents it will be evident that the institution in question remain recognised till 15th April, 1993. Such recognition having not cancelled from retrospective date. There appears to be no difficulty for the respondents to publish result of the students completed their sessions prior to 15th April, 1993, though examination held later on because of inaction on the part of the Board.

8. So far as students whose sessions completed after 15th April, 1993 or those who have been admitted after 15th April. 1993, they have been studied from a de-recognised institution, there is no justification to publish the result of such students.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the students who completed the course in the session 1991-93, they having completed studies from a recognised institution, the respondents cannot refuse to publish the result.

10. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to publish the result of students who appeared in the Teachers Training Examination from SPG Mission Primary Teachers Training College, (Male), Ranchi having completed studies in the session 1991-93 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

11. So far as the students, who completed studie for the sessions 1992-94, are concerned, no such relief can be granted.

12. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations anddirections.

13. Petitions disposed of.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2001 Same Parties Sunil Kumar Das vs Bihar School Examination Board and anr. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Constitution