Yogendra Kumar S/O Late Sitaram Singh Vs. the State of Bihar Through Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the crux of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that all the students of all the affected institutions, had taken their examination and some of whom have received their certificates while others like the petitioners who have applied for the same must be treated alike otherwise it would violate article 14 of the constitution of india. state of bihar 2005 (4) pljr 607 to submit that in the supreme court judgment it has been clearly held that since the recognition of the institutions was subsequently withdrawn as a result of a judgment of the high court covering those institutions, the students cannot be issued with diplomas or certificates but only their mark-sheets may be supplied to them. the division bench judgment of this court noticed above is an authority for the well established principle that after recognition has been revoked on the basis of enquiry/inspection, for the period even prior to revocation no mandamus can be issued for conduct of the examination by the respondent-board. but so far as the examinations already held are concerned, the examinees like the petitioner have a right to get their result published and no claim certificates specially when there is no decision to cancel the past result of all the derecognized institutions and clearly some similarly situated students have received certificates pursuant to judgment of this court contained in annexure-c. shiva kirti singh, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the state and learned counsel for the bihar school examination board.2. the order passed in this case on 25.7.2008 takes note of the relevant facts and also indicated the main issue falling for decision.3. petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the bihar school examination board (hereinafter referred to as the 'board') for issuing his d.p.ed. examination certificate for the session 1987-1988. the examination for that session was held in january, 1994. petitioner had studied from s.m. zahir alam physical training college, darbhanga which admittedly had permanent recognition since the session 1986-1987 vide a notification of state government dated 26.4.1994.4. on behalf of board whose arguments were also adopted by the learned counsel for the state, a vociferous attack was made on the concerned training college. it was shown that as late as in february, 1994 the state government had refused to grant recognition and it is strange that permanent recognition was granted on 26.4.1994. reliance was placed upon annexure-a to the counter affidavit of the state to show that by an order dated 13.4.2004 issued by the concerned department, the state government decided to cancel with immediate effect the earlier recognitions granted to different physical training colleges conducting c.p.eed/d.p.ed courses. the order is specific that on issuance of this order all the orders relating to grant of recognition issued in the past will be deemed to have been cancelled. the reasons for such a blanket decision in respect of all the institutions are also indicated in that order. the reasons mentioned therein show that the facts have been considered generally and not in respect of any particular institution. in that context it has been indicated that most of such colleges use to take admission before completing the requirements for recognition. some of such institutions, it transpired, purposely delayed in sending up their students to take the examination and this was done later after realizing desired amount from the students.5. there is no dispute that some students of the same institution had moved this court through writ petitions bearing cwjc. no. 5763/1996 and cwjc. no. 5777/1996. those cases were allowed by judgment and order dated 26.8.1997 contained in annexure-c to the counter affidavit of the respondent-board.6. on behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that in the aforesaid facts the order of withdrawing/cancellation of recognition must be treated to be prospective in nature because there is no decision that the earlier examinations will be treated as cancelled or the certificates issued to the batch mates of the petitioners pursuant to annexure-c would be treated as cancelled.7. it was highlighted that the order dated 13.4.2004 cancelling all earlier orders of recognition, applicable to a number of institutions does not talk of any conscious decision to cancel the certificates or results issued earlier. the crux of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that all the students of all the affected institutions, had taken their examination and some of whom have received their certificates while others like the petitioners who have applied for the same must be treated alike otherwise it would violate article 14 of the constitution of india.8. learned counsel for the respondents-board placed reliance upon judgment of the apex court in the case of l. muthukumar v. state of tamil nadu : air2000sc3084 and a division bench judgment of this court in the case of a.k.s.h.p teacher training college v. state of bihar 2005 (4) pljr 607 to submit that in the supreme court judgment it has been clearly held that since the recognition of the institutions was subsequently withdrawn as a result of a judgment of the high court covering those institutions, the students cannot be issued with diplomas or certificates but only their mark-sheets may be supplied to them. the division bench judgment of this court noticed above is an authority for the well established principle that after recognition has been revoked on the basis of enquiry/inspection, for the period even prior to revocation no mandamus can be issued for conduct of the examination by the respondent-board. that principle is based upon in the supreme court judgment noticed above.9. in the present case, a distinction has to be drawn between the case of the petitioner who is a student and had appeared in the examination long back and that of the institution. further on facts, it has been found that the cancellation of recognition by order dated 13.4.2004 is not based upon inspection and report of particular institution from where the petitioner studied nor such recognition has been cancelled on the ground that the institution was incapable of imparting the necessary education as per requirement of law.10. hence, for all practical purpose, the decision dated 13.4.2004 must be treated to be prospective and in that view no direction can be issued upon the board to hold further examinations for such institutions. but so far as the examinations already held are concerned, the examinees like the petitioner have a right to get their result published and no claim certificates specially when there is no decision to cancel the past result of all the derecognized institutions and clearly some similarly situated students have received certificates pursuant to judgment of this court contained in annexure-c.11. this court feels compelled by the requirement of the article 14 of the constitution of india to allow the prayer in the writ petition and to direct the respondent-board to publish the result of the petitioner and grant him the d.p.ed certificate on the basis of his result.12. this judgment should not be treated as putting any curbs on the power of the state government to take a policy decision in respect of the earlier examinations and results already published in accordance with law and keeping in view the requirements of article 14 of the constitution of india.13. the board shall comply with the aforesaid direction at the earliest and in any case within four weeks.

Judgment:

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board.

2. The order passed in this case on 25.7.2008 takes note of the relevant facts and also indicated the main issue falling for decision.

3. Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') for issuing his D.P.Ed. Examination Certificate for the Session 1987-1988. The examination for that session was held in January, 1994. Petitioner had studied from S.M. Zahir Alam Physical Training College, Darbhanga which admittedly had permanent recognition since the Session 1986-1987 vide a Notification of State Government dated 26.4.1994.

4. On behalf of Board whose arguments were also adopted by the learned Counsel for the State, a vociferous attack was made on the concerned Training College. It was shown that as late as in February, 1994 the State Government had refused to grant recognition and it is strange that permanent recognition was granted on 26.4.1994. Reliance was placed upon Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the State to show that by an order dated 13.4.2004 issued by the concerned department, the State Government decided to cancel with immediate effect the earlier recognitions granted to different Physical Training Colleges conducting C.P.Eed/D.P.Ed courses. The order is specific that on issuance of this order all the orders relating to grant of recognition issued in the past will be deemed to have been cancelled. The reasons for such a blanket decision in respect of all the institutions are also indicated in that order. The reasons mentioned therein show that the facts have been considered generally and not in respect of any particular institution. In that context it has been indicated that most of such Colleges use to take admission before completing the requirements for recognition. Some of such institutions, it transpired, purposely delayed in sending up their students to take the examination and this was done later after realizing desired amount from the students.

5. There is no dispute that some students of the same institution had moved this Court through writ petitions bearing CWJC. No. 5763/1996 and CWJC. No. 5777/1996. Those cases were allowed by judgment and order dated 26.8.1997 contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the respondent-board.

6. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that in the aforesaid facts the order of withdrawing/cancellation of recognition must be treated to be prospective in nature because there is no decision that the earlier examinations will be treated as cancelled or the Certificates issued to the batch mates of the petitioners pursuant to Annexure-C would be treated as cancelled.

7. It was highlighted that the order dated 13.4.2004 cancelling all earlier orders of recognition, applicable to a number of institutions does not talk of any conscious decision to cancel the Certificates or results issued earlier. The crux of the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that all the students of all the affected institutions, had taken their examination and some of whom have received their Certificates while others like the petitioners who have applied for the same must be treated alike otherwise it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondents-board placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L. Muthukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR2000SC3084 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.K.S.H.P Teacher Training College v. State of Bihar 2005 (4) PLJR 607 to submit that in the Supreme Court judgment it has been clearly held that since the recognition of the institutions was subsequently withdrawn as a result of a judgment of the High Court covering those institutions, the students cannot be issued with diplomas or certificates but only their mark-sheets may be supplied to them. The Division Bench judgment of this Court noticed above is an authority for the well established principle that after recognition has been revoked on the basis of enquiry/inspection, for the period even prior to revocation no mandamus can be issued for conduct of the examination by the respondent-board. That principle is based upon in the Supreme Court judgment noticed above.

9. In the present case, a distinction has to be drawn between the case of the petitioner who is a student and had appeared in the examination long back and that of the institution. Further on facts, it has been found that the cancellation of recognition by order dated 13.4.2004 is not based upon inspection and report of particular institution from where the petitioner studied nor such recognition has been cancelled on the ground that the institution was incapable of imparting the necessary education as per requirement of law.

10. Hence, for all practical purpose, the decision dated 13.4.2004 must be treated to be prospective and in that view no direction can be issued upon the Board to hold further examinations for such institutions. But so far as the examinations already held are concerned, the examinees like the petitioner have a right to get their result published and no claim Certificates specially when there is no decision to cancel the past result of all the derecognized institutions and clearly some similarly situated students have received Certificates pursuant to judgment of this Court contained in Annexure-C.

11. This Court feels compelled by the requirement of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India to allow the prayer in the writ petition and to direct the respondent-board to publish the result of the petitioner and grant him the D.P.Ed Certificate on the basis of his result.

12. This judgment should not be treated as putting any curbs on the power of the State Government to take a policy decision in respect of the earlier examinations and results already published in accordance with law and keeping in view the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

13. The Board shall comply with the aforesaid direction at the earliest and in any case within four weeks.