Mayank Kumar Minor v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18318 of 2016 =========================================================== Mayank Kumar ( Minor ) through his father and natural guardian Sri Manindra Narayan Singh Son of Late Vibhisan Singh resident of village + P.O. Nonsari, P.S. Nokha, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

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

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

4. The District Education Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas

5. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Eastern Zone through its Regional Officer, Bihar, Patna

6. The Bal Vikas Vidyalaya through its Managing Director, Rauza Road, Sasaram, Rohtas

7. The Managing Director, Managing Committee, Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram, Rauza Road, Sasaram, Rohtas

8. The Principal, Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram, Rauza Road, Sasaram, Rohtas .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh NarayanSingh For the C.B.S.E.:

Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar- GP17 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-17 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the C.B.S.E. did not declare his result of Class-X (Board Examination) for a very long time. He had to move from the School, the Regional Office of C.B.S.E. till the Central Office of Delhi and had to also approach the Member of Parliament to interfere. Then only, the results came to be declared.

The stand of the C.B.S.E. is that fault lies with the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18318 of 2016 dt.23-12-2016 2/2 school, which did not load the result of the petitioner on-line. In absence of the details and data, they had no mechanism to declare the result of the petitioner.

Petitioner wants compensation. The fault lies with the school.

If that be so, then the writ court is not the answer, since it is a privately managed affair. But dismissal of the writ will not come in the way of the petitioner, invoking the common law remedies of taught before the court of competent jurisdiction for suitable compensation.

This writ application is dismissed with liberty as above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.12.2016 Transmission Date