Declaring an academic year as a holiday due to suspicion of forged mark sheets, without any finding of forgery or fabrication, is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

1. All these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the facts of all these cases can be had from the writ petition of Usha Singh and others being C.W.J.C. No. 4978 of 1985.

3. In these writ applications the petitioners challenge an order as contained in letter No. 425 dated 9-4-1985 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna, which is contained in annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the said respondent directed that the Session 1984-85 of the Women Primary Teachers to be declared as holiday and petitioners should be directed to take fresh admission in 1985-87 session. In all these cases the petitioners admittedly took admission in the 1984-86 session except in the case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2599 of 1986. In the aforementioned case there is dispute as to whether the petitioners have in fact taken admission for the first time in 1984-86 sessions. Pursuant to an advertisement the petitioners applied for taking admission in 1984-86 session in Mahila Prathamik Shiksha Mahavidhalaya, Darbhanga, Madhubani and Bhagalpur.

4. After the petitioners were admitted it was alleged that large number of mark sheets were apprehended to be manufactured and as such by reason of the impugned order as contained in annexure-6 to this writ application it was directed that the sessions 1984-86 declared to be holiday and students be directed to take admission in 1985-87 session.

5. At the time of admission of these writ applications this court directed the authority to allow the petitioners to continue the training college. In respect of the alleged forged mark sheet, this court further directed that in the event the mark sheets are found to be forged, the petitioners should not be allowed to continue in the training college. However, it was further directed that the session 1984-86 would continue as originally commenced. The learned counsel for the State except appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 2599 of 1986 stated that no counter affidavit has been filed in their cases. Learned counsel, further submitted that they are not aware as to whether any enquiry was conducted or continued with regard to the alleged forged mark sheets or whether any report in that regard has been submitted to the State. In C.W.J.C. No. 2599 of 1986 a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in which it has been alleged that the petitioners of that writ application were admitted in the session 1985-87.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the impugned order as contained in annexure-6 of the petition is wholly arbitrary in view of the fact that the petitioners had suffered loss of one academic year thereby without any fault on their part and without there being any finding that the mark-sheet submitted by them are forged or fabricated. There cannot be any doubt that at this juncture of him when there is a fierce competition for obtaining employment, loss of one academic year is important as the same will make him junior to the person whose results are published earlier. The loss of one academic year may also result in loss in other spheres. In this case there is absolutely no doubt that the petitioners were admitted only because they were found eligible therefor. The concerned authorities at the time of admitting the students must have examined the mark sheets and all other relevant documents at that point of time. It was not disclosed to the petitioner that their marks sheets were forged or even any suspicion was expressed in that regard at that time. There can also be no doubt, that in law if a student seeks admission in an institution on the basis of forged and fabricated marks sheet then he is liable to be thrown out of the institution. In the instant case, there is no finding that the marks sheet submitted by the petitioner or any of the