S.B.Sanyal and U.P.Singh JJ.

1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks a direction tot publication of his result which has been withheld all these long years.

2. It is said that the petitioner appeared in training examination which was held on 29th January, 1973 (Supplementry). The petitioners fees and forma were accepted and he participated in the examination for the session 1970-72. It appears that under certain Government direction the results were directed to be withheld and not to be published probably on the view that the institution was not recognised. The petitioner being aggrieved with that decision has moved this Court even though after long years. The petitioner explains the delay by stating that several writ applications tiled from time to time in the Court by similarly situated students appearing fro en the same institution have been allowed and the petitioner expected that authorities would apply the same principle in his case as well and automatically publish his result.

3. Mr. Rafat Alam appearing on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1987 PLJR -59l. Mr. Rafat Alam also drew our attention to an unreported cider of this Court to show that on the ground of delay a similar writ petition was dismissed, It is, however, not denied by Mr. Rafat Alam that the results of some students similarly situated have been published. He, however, contended that results were published after the direction of this Court.

4. Having considered the long argument of the parties, we are surprised that even though this Court directed publication of result and having given out its clear mind on 31.8.1981 in C.W.J.C. No. 22515/80 that the results of the students cannot be withheld but be published, the respondent, Bihar School Examination Board, curiously sat tight over the matter and failed to adopt the same course as adopted in respect of other similarly situated students, like the petitioner. The ground of delay as pleaded by Mr. Rafat Alam is wholly misconceived in the facts and circumstances of this case. The respondent themselves are responsible for this situation. The Supreme Court while dealing with the publication of result of B.Ed. students arising out of the above-noted Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh and Ors. V/s. L.N. Mithila University Darbhanga and Ors., 1989 0 PLJR 18, held that publication of the results of some students similarly situated and non-publication of result of others is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, in other words the apex court upheld the minority view and, therefore, the Full Bench decision reported in 1987 PLJR 591 is no more good law.

5. We, therefore, allow this writ application and direct the respondent, Bihar School Examination Board, to publish the result of the petitioner as it has been done in the case of others.

6. The writ application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 500 only.