NIGAR SULTANA DAUGHTER OF SRI GULAM RASHOOL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT., GOVT, OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board.

(2.) PRAYER of the writ petitioner in this application reads as follows: - "That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent to publish the result of S.T.C. examination of Sessions 89 -90 held by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, Bihar." At the outset to an objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents to an unexplained delay over seventeen years in filing this writ petition learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain that such delay of 17 to 18 years in filing of this writ application would not be fatal because the respondent -Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has itself failed in performing and discharging its statutory duty in maintaining the records and properly entering the marks secured by the petitioner. He would, also rely on the unreported judgment of this Court dated 5.2.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 13182 of 2007 to buttress his submission that the Board is under obligation to give average marks to the petitioner so that she may pass her examination.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board has submitted that the writ application filed by the petitioner itself is misconceived inasmuch as, 'result of the petitioner has already been declared, wherein she has been shown to have been failed in the aforementioned examination. He would further explain that under the Regulation of the Board, the answer book of a student has to be preserved only for a period of three months from the date of publication of result of the examination concerned and therefore this writ application pertaining to the examination held in the year 1991 for an academic session of 1989 -90 is itself not maintainable on the ground of unexplained delay. He has also referred to certain orders of this Court wherein both the Division Bench and the learned Single Judges have held that the delay itself would be fatal in maintaining the writ application of the present nature seeking relief of declaration of result. He has finally submitted that the reasons for declaring the petitioner to have been failed in the examination have also been well explained in the counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner had secured 28 marks in Paper -4 and was found to be absent in paper -8 examination.