RAM PRIT RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole writ Petitioner in this writ application is an examinee of "Praveshika" Examination 1997 (Annual) conducted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar (Respondent No. 2). The said examination is accepted by the State of Bihar as equivalent to secondary school examination (matriculation). The Petitioner took the said examination at Ajit Kumar Mehta Sanskrit Shiksha Sansthan, Uma Kant Nagar, Ladora Dargah, Samastipur examination centre from 23.6.1997 to 28.6.1997. As per impugned order contained in Annexure -9, Respondent No. 2 Hindi Vidyapith has cancelled the examination result of the said examination held at the examination centre of Respondent No. 4, Ajit Kumar Mehta Sanskrit Shiksha Sansthan. The Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the order contained in Annexure -9 and for a further direction to the Respondent No.

(2.) TO publish the result of 1997 annual examination taken by the Petitioner. 2. According to the Petitioner, the examination in question in which the Petitioner participated was held at the examination centre of Respondent No. 4 along with some other examinations conducted by the Respondent No. 2. It is further case of the Petitioner that the said examination was held as per direction of the Respondent No. 2 which had deputed an observer for the examination centre in question and there was no adverse report regarding the conduct of the said examination either by the observer or by the centre superintendent.

(3.) ON behalf of the Petitioner it was submitted on the basis of Annexure -13, a letter from Respondent No. 2 containing instructions to the Centre Superintendent that there was no responsibility given to the Centre Superintendents to give information of the examination to the district authorities. According to the Petitioner such a responsibility if at all be there, then it rests only upon the Respondent No. 2. It has further been argued that since the only materials or evidence for cancelling the result was the letter of the District Education Officer, the impugned order based on such a report deserves to be quashed because a closure scrutiny of the letter of the District Education Officer disclose that it contains no specific materials to show that the examination was not held in accordance with law rather the fact that the observer and the Centre