Dismissed

Premchand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Nov 2016CWJC/10915/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the withdrawal of the petitioner's provisional admission to an Industrial Training Institute due to a variance in handwriting between the application and the examination script. The Court held that fraud vitiates all rights acquired through it.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; the order withdrawing provisional admission was upheld.

Premchand Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10915 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== Premchand Kumar Son of Sri Narsingh Prasad Gupta Resident of Village : - Hardiabad, P.O. : - Jankinagar, P.S. : - Muffasil, District : - Munger.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Controller of Examinations, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (B.C.E.C.E. Board), Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Munger.

¶9

The Principal, Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.), Munger.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambika Bhagat For the BCECE Board : Mr. Vikas Kumar For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar, AC to GA-12

¶11

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date: 10-11-2016

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Petitioner was provisionally allotted and admitted in the

¶15

Trade Sheet Metal Worker Course at ITI, Munger on the basis of examination held by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. Petitioner took admission, underwent the studies and completed it as well.

¶16

Now the problem has arisen, because after many years of completion of the course, the Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board has decided to withdraw the provisional admission granted to the petitioner. The primary reason, which has been indicated in Annexure-7, dated 14.04.2016, which is under

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.10915 of 2016 dt.10-11-2016

¶18

2/3

¶19

challenge, is that on a scientific analysis of the hand writing of the petitioner, wide variance has been found in the actual hand writing of the petitioner viz-a-viz the hand writing of the candidate, who had taken the examination.

¶20

When the matter was taken up, the Court wanted to have a look at the primary material, which formed the basis of passing of the impugned order, contained in Annexure-7. The primary material and evidence is supposed to be the opinion, which has been given by the State Examiner of Question Documents. The opinion is Annexure-D series, which has been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said authority, i.e., the State Examiner of Question Documents.

¶21

The Court has gone through the opinion, the samples used and the hand writing which were compared with the specimen. The Court has tried to apply its independent mind as well to the material. Even as a layman the benefit of doubt, which the petitioner is claiming on the ground that the petitioner at the relevant time had fallen sick and because he was too weak, the two hand-writings are at variance, cannot be accepted.

¶22

In addition to that since the petitioner has not brought any other material or opinion, which in any manner can dislodge the opinion given by the authority, there is no second opinion as well, which makes the finding arguable.

¶23

The Court is aware of the fact that the admission

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.10915 of 2016 dt.10-11-2016

¶25

3/3

¶26

related to the year 2010 and the impugned order, contained in Annexure-7, has been passed on 14.04.2016, after much delay of completion of the course, which has serious implications for the petitioner. The Court, therefore, directs all the authorities that they have an obligation to render opinion and take a decision on such controversial facts at the earliest, so that a candidate can work out alternative ways and means for taking care of his future, by acquiring some other skill or education.

¶27

However, the fact that the admission was obtained by the petitioner by using means, foul the same cannot find favour under law as the right was acquired by playing fraud with the system. The well settled principle that the fraud vitiates everything cannot be either diluted or ignored.

¶28

The Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, contained in Annexure-7, dated 14.04.2016.

¶29

Writ application is dismissed.

¶30

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶31

SKM/-

¶32

AFR/NAFR	N.A.F.R.
CAVDATE
UploadingDate	11.11.2016
Transmission Date

Premchand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ran Vijoya Kumar @ Ran Vijay Kumar Vs The Bihar School Examination Board and Ors.

Juhi Khanam, Minor Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hassebur Rahman Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Amit Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.