important point
Where a palpable injustice has been meted out to appellants even at the hands of High Court, the Supreme Court has to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.

Headnote:(a)Educational Law – Examination – Respondent-college admitting students for C.P.Ed and D.P.Ed courses in 1993 after due recognition and permission from State Government – Appellants completing their courses in 1995 and 1996 and their names sent to the respondent-Board for taking examination – Despite clear and categorical instructions and repeated suggestions by the Deputy Secretary (Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Department), Government of Bihar, and also by the Secretary of the concerned Department, the respondent-Board has failed to discharge its function and responsibility of holding the examination entrusted to it by the State Government, which has resulted in irreparable loss to the appellants, that too without any plausible and tenable explanation for debarring the appellants from taking examination. (Para 20)
       (b)Educational Law – Examination – Palpable injustice done to the appellants because of the sheer fault and inefficiency of the respondent-Board, by not taking any steps to admit the appellants to appear in the examination till the respondent-College was de-recognised in terms of the provisions of the NCTE Act – It is again unfortunate that in spite of fighting a long legal battle the appellants could not get any justice even from the court of law – The NCTE Act came into force with prospective effect from 17.08.2005 – Therefore in view of the appellants having completed their courses in 1994-95 and 1995-96 sessions, the order of the High Court holding that the respondent-College has since been de-recognised after the enforcement of the NCTE Act, and as such, the appellants could not be granted the permission to take examination of the C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses from the unrecognized institution, is erroneous and untenable – Respondent-Board directed to take examination of the appellants. (Para 21 and 22)
       Facts of the case :
       Tirhut Physical Education College, Muzaffarpur, respondent No. 7 was established in the year 1938. The State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, by Notification No. 25 dated 6.11.1993 granted permission to the respondent-College to enroll one hundred students in C.P. Ed. and one hundred students in D.P. Ed. Courses for the Sessions 1993-94 to 1995-96.
       Sunil Kumar Parimal (appellant No. 1) claims to be a first class post-graduate in Geography from Mithila University. He was enrolled in the respondent-College in C.P. Ed. Course for the academic session 1993-94. He completed his C.P. Ed course in March, 1995. His name was sent by the respondent-College for appearing in the examination to be conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna-respondent No. 4.
       Shiv Shankar Roy – appellant No. 2, is a Graduate in Commerce from Mithila University. He took admission to the D.P. Ed. course for the academic session 1995-96. He completed his course in March, 1996. The name of appellant No. 2 was also sent by the respondent-College to the respondent-Board for taking the examination. However, no examination was conducted by the respondent-Board who is entrusted the responsibility of holding the examination for the said courses by the respondent-State.
       The appellants and other similarly placed candidates along with the Principal of the respondent-College, made several representations requesting the respondent-authorities to take the examinations of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed. courses for the academic sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. It appears that on 26.11.1998, the Deputy Secretary (Art, Culture and Youth Department), Government of Bihar, wrote a letter to the Secretary of respondentBoard, directing the latter to conduct the postponed examination of the students of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed for the academic sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. It is the case of the appellants that on 18.12.1999, the Department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Bihar forwarded the list of the students to the respondent-Board who had to appear in the examination of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed from respondent-College for the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. On 26.06.2001, the respondent-Board wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary (Art, Culture & Youth Affairs Department), Government of Bihar, in which it was stated that the list of the candidates of two colleges, namely, respondent-College and Urs Line Women Physical Education College, Lohardugga, had been received but the list of candidates of remaining three colleges was not received which was requested to be sent so that steps to hold the examination collectively could be taken. After it was learnt that the respondent-Board was contemplating to hold the examination for the said courses in the month of November, 2002, the students made representation to the respondent-State and a copy thereof was forwarded to the respondent-Board requesting the authorities to allow them to appear in the examination likely to be conducted in November, 2002.
       It appears that on 5.10.2002 the Deputy Secretary (Art Culture and Youths Department) wrote one more letter to the respondent-Board asking the Examination Committee of the Board to conduct the examination of students of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed courses who were enrolled by the respondent-College for sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 along with examination of students of Government Health and Physical Training College, Bihar, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. Again on 8.10.2002, the Principal of the respondent-College wrote a letter to the Secretary of the respondent-Board bringing to his notice the sad and miserable plights of the students of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed. courses who were to appear in the examination for the academic sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. He also requested the Secretary to permit those students to appear in the examination with the students of Government Health and Physical Education College, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. It appears from the record that in November, 2002 the respondent-Board had conducted examinations for C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed courses for the students of Government Health and Physical Education College, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, but it did not allow the students of the respondentCollege to take the examination. In the year 2006, when the appellants again came to know that the respondent-Board was contemplating to conduct examination of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed courses for the students of Government Health and Physical Education College, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, and also former students of Koshi Physical Education College, Madepura, they immediately approached the Principal of the respondent-College, who informed them that the candidates of their institution were debarred by the respondent-Board from taking the examinations.
       The appellants left with no other alternative remedy, approached the High Court on 17.8.2006 by means of C.W.J.C. No. 8091/2006 seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Bihar-respondent No. 1, Joint Secretary (Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Department), Government of Bihar-respondent No. 2, Director (Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Department), Government of Bihar-respondent No. 3, Bihar School Examination Board-respondent No. 4, Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board-respondent No. 5, Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board-respondent No. 6 and Vice Principal, Tirhut Physical Education College-respondent No. 7, to allow them to appear in the examination and thereafter publish their result. The appellants filed IA No. 3323/2006 praying for an interim direction to the respondent-State to consider their applications for the posts of Physical Training Teachers during ensuing recruitment. The learned Single Judge on 19.8.2006 directed the respondent-State to consider the said request of the appellants.
       On 12.09.2006, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellants primarily on the ground that on and with effect from the day of enforcement of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the respondent-College was de-recognised and as a result thereof the respondent-Board is not competent to allow the students to appear in the examination, who is pursuing or has pursued the course in a non-recognised institution. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 697/2006 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, dismissed the appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
       Appellants have suffered because of sheer fault and inefficiency of the respondent-Board. High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition by considering the NCTE Act to be applicable to the case.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—

1.Special leave granted.

2.This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2007 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna by which L.P.A. No. 697/2006 filed by the appellants was dismissed and thereby the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2006 dismissing the C.W.J.C. No. 8091/2006 of the appellants came to be affirmed.

3.The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows :

“Tirhut Physical Education College, Muzaffarpur respondent No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as respondent College) was established in the year 1938. The State of Bihar respondent No. 1 (for short respondent-State) by Notification No. 25 dated 6.11.1993 granted permission to the respondentCollege to enroll one hundred students in C.P. Ed. and one hundred students in D.P. Ed. Courses for the Sessions 1993-94 to 1995-96.”

4.Sunil Kumar Parimal appellant No. 1 herein claims to be a first class post-graduate in Geography from Mithila University. He was enrolled in the respondent College in C.P. Ed. Course for the academic session 1993-94. He completed his C.P. Ed course in March, 1995. His name was sent by the respondent College for appearing in the examination to be conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patnarespondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Board).

5.Shiv Shankar Royappellant No. 2 is a Graduate in Commerce from Mithila University. He took admission to the D.P. Ed. course for the academic session 1995-96. He completed his course in March, 1996. The name of appellant No. 2 was also sent by the respondentCollege to the respondentBoard for taking the examination. However, no examination was conducted by the respondent-Board who is entrusted the responsibility of holding the examination for the said courses by the respondent-State.

6.The appellants and other similarly placed candidates along with the Principal of the respondent-College, made several representations requesting the respondent-authorities to take the examinations of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed. courses for the academic sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. It appears that on 26.11.1998, the Deputy Secretary (Art, Culture and Youth Department), Government of Bihar, wrote a letter to the Secretary of respondentBoard, directing the latter to conduct the postponed examination of the students of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed for the academic sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. It is the case of the appellants that on 18.12.1999, the Department of Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Bihar forwarded the list of the students to the respondentBoard who had to appear in the examination of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed from respondentCollege for the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96. On 26.06.2001, the respondent-Board wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary (Art, Culture & Youth Affairs Department), Government of Bihar, in which it was stated that the list of the candidates of two colleges, namely, respondentCollege and Urs Line Women Physical Education College, Lohardugga, had been received but the list of candidates of remaining three colleges was not received which was requested to be sent so that steps to hold the examination collectively could be taken. After it was learnt that the respondent-Board was contemplating to hold the examination for the said courses in the month of November, 2002, the students made representation to the respondentState and a copy thereof was forwarded to the respondent-Board requesting the authorities to allow them to appear in the examination likely to be conducted in November, 2002.

7.It appears that on 5.10.2002 the Deputy Secretary (Art Culture and Youths Department) wrote one more letter to the respondentBoard asking the Examination Committee of the Board to conduct the examination of students of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed courses who were enrolled by the respondent College for sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 along with examination of s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1164

important pointWhere a palpable injustice has been meted out to appellants even at the hands of High Court, the Supreme Court has to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.

important point
Where a palpable injustice has been meted out to appellants even at the hands of High Court, the Supreme Court has to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.