Back
1992 Supreme(Pat) 315
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and G.C.Bharuka JJ.
Koshi Physical Training College, Madhepura
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 226 of 1992 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
Students of an unrecognized institution cannot be permitted to appear at the examination nor have they any right to get their results published.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - RECOGNITION OF INSTITUTION - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : N/A - SUMMARY : The court held that students of an unrecognized institution cannot be permitted to appear at the examination nor have they any right to get their results published. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in A. P. C. M. E Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Farodi Primary Teachers, Training College and others V/s. the State of Bihar, as well as the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh and others V/s. Lalit Narain Mithila University and others.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an unrecognized institution, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Bihar School Examination Board to accept the fees and forms of its students for the Physical Training Examination. The petitioner contended that it had been granted temporary affiliation by the State Government and that its students had completed their courses of studies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's institution did not fulfill the criteria for recognition as it lacked adequate facilities and financial resources. The court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the State Government's order rejecting its application for recognition.
Issues: Whether the students of an unrecognized institution can be permitted to appear at the examination and have their results published.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that students of an unrecognized institution cannot be permitted to appear at the examination nor have they any right to get their results published. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in A. P. C. M. E Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Farodi Primary Teachers, Training College and others V/s. the State of Bihar, as well as the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh and others V/s. Lalit Narain Mithila University and others.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application.
S. B. Sinha, JJ.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to accept the fees and forms of the petitioners institution for the sessions 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 of the students who had already Completed their courses of studies from the said college and allow him to appear at the Physical Training Examination conducted by the Bihar School.
2. Examinati Board, Patna. Admittedly petitioners institution was established for grant of Physical Training. It is admitted that for establishment and recognition of such an institution, permission of the State of bihar is required.
3. The petitioner has contended that since August 1985, 100 students each for the aforementioned sessions had undergone Physical Training as per the prescribed courses of studies.
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, it is also admitted, conducts examination of the trainees of the Physical Training College on completion of their courses of studies laid down by the State Government.
5. The petitioner filed an application for recognition of the said institution respect whereof a committe to inspected the same. The said inspection report was submitted by the Inspection Team and in terms whereof the State Government granted temporary affiliation of the recognition of the aforementioned college on 5-11-1989.
6. The said order dated 5-11-89 has admitted by (sic) not been communicated to the petitioner nor any notification in relation thereto has yet been published.
7. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in this court being cwjc No.3913 of 1990 By an order as contained in the letter dated 14-6-1991 the State Government communicated to the petitioner that the Government has rejected its prayer for affiliation/recognition of the said college. The said order is contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application.
8. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ application in this court which was registered as CWJC No.5190 of 1991, The said writ petitioner was disposed of by a division Bench of this Court by an order dated 17-12-1991 which is to the following effect :-
"after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the examination Board, and after perusing the counter-affidavit we dispose of this application at this stage with their consent and with a direction to the respondents and its authorities concerned to take a final decision in the matter of granting recognition to this institution. We are not satisfied with the order which has been passed under Annexure- 1 which is just contrary to the inspection report contained in Annexurc-2, whereby it appears that all the conditions for grant of recognition have been fulfilled. When, in earlier order respondent no.3 was directed to take a final decision regarding the recognition of the college concerned upon consideration of the inspection report and all other materials and documents relevant thereto, then this will not mean so as to grant him discretion to consider it wrongly and ignoring their own report. We highly deprecate such action of the authorities by which justice is being defeated. Accordingly,, we quash Annexure-1 and direct the authorities concerned to consider the question of grant of affiliation to this institution, on the basis of inspection report contained in Annexure-2, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. "
9. The petitioner has contended that the said order had been communicated to the authorities to the State of Bihar. It has further been contended that the Board has issued a notification dated 31-12-1991 fixing 11-2-1992 for conducting the physical traiuing examination.
10. The petitioner approached the Board for accepting fees and forms of the petitioners Institution but the said request had been rejected by the respondent No.5.
11. A counter-a
