Anjali (Plus 2) U.M. School v. Bihar School Examination Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.131 of 2022 In Letters Patent Appeal No.881 of 2019 ====================================================== Anjali (Plus 2) U.M. School Bypass Road, Kazichak Gaya through Principal Vinay Kumar, S/o Garib Das, R/o Rajkumar Nagar Ghughri Tand, P.O.-Chand Chaura, P.S.-Vishnupad, District-Gaya.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

Bihar School Examination Board, Buddha Marg, Patna through its Chairman.

2.

The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 3.

Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 07-10-2025 I.A. No. 1 of 2025 This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in filing of the review application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground on which the application for condonation of delay has been filed is that in the second week of June 2022, the petitioner came to know that there are many other schools which are not complying with the parameters in terms of Rule 3 under Chapter 11 of the Bihar School Examination Board Affiliation

Patna High Court C. REV. No.131 of 2022(5) dt.07-10-2025 2/2 Rules, 2011 (as updated), still the affiliation of those schools have not been cancelled.

3. It is evident from the statements made in the application seeking condonation of delay that the petitioner had got the information as claimed in the second week of June 2022 which was well within the period of limitation prescribed for filing of a Letters Patent Appeal. Despite this, the appeal was not filed within time.

4. On going through the entire application, we find no averment showing any reason much less any cogent and sufficient reason to show as to why the petitioner could not prefer the civil review application within the limitation period.

5. We find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay.

6. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is dismissed accordingly.

7. As a result thereof, the civil review application would stand dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Sourendra Pandey, J) lekhi/- U