Prashant Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5376 of 2015 =========================================================== Prashant Kumar, son of Gauri Nath Mishra Bhaskar, resident of MohallaShivpuri, Pokharia, Police Station- Saadr, district- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Education Officer, Begusarai.

5. The Bihar Saskrit Siksha Board, through its Chairman, Back to Harding Road, House No. 17, Near Chitkohra Bridge (Pool) Patna.

6. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Back to Harding Road, House No. 17, Near Chitkohra Pool, Patna.

7. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Back to Harding Road, House No. 17, Near Chitkohra Pool, Patna.

8. The Controller of Examination, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Back to Harding Road, House No. 17, Near Chitkohra Pool, Patna.

9. The Headmaster, Sanskrit Vidayapeeth, House No.17, Near Chitkohra Pool, Patna.

10. The Headmaster-Cum- Centre Superintendent Saraswati Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya, Begusarai. (The Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board. (hereinafter referred to as the Board.) .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajey Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. GA12-AJAY For the Board : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-07-2015 Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has passed an order on the direction of the High Court in CWJC No. 15115 of 2010. They have clearly and categorically asserted that the school in question from

Patna High Court CWJC No.5376 of 2015 dt.03-07-2015 2 / 2 where petitioner is supposed to have passed Madhyama examination and produced mark-sheet is a forged document because there was absolutely no record to certify about the participation of the petitioner in the said examination. The total number of candidates who had appeared in that centre was only serial No. 1 to 349 whereas petitioner is supposed to be at serial No. 378.

In view of the same, this Court cannot certify over and above the authority which had issued so-called mark-sheet of the petitioner.

Writ application stands dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/- U