SUNIL KUMAR PARIMAL AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 11-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SUNIL KUMAR PARIMAL ANO ANR. 
v. 
THE ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 
IH.K.SEMAANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.) 
Education/Educational Institutions: Examination for sessions 1994-95 
and 1995-96-Not held inspite of instructions of State authorities to Board-
C Writ petition by students-Dismissed on the ground that respondent-College 
had been de-recognised-On appeal, held: Respondent-College lost its 
recognition only w.ef 17.08.2005 when the NCTE Act came into force and 
before that date, it was duly recognised institution-Palpable injustice done 
to the students due to inefficiency of Board-Case fit for exercising jurisdiction 
under Article 142 of Constitution-Authorities directed to permit aggrieved 
D students to appear in examination-National Council of Teacher Education 
Act, 1993-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142. 
The appellants had taken admission in C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses for 
the sessions 1994-95 and 1995-96 in the recognised respondent-College. The 
examinations for the said courses were to be held by the respondent-Board. 
E The respondent-Board has not taken any steps to hold the examinations for 
these sessions. On 18.12.1999, the Department of Art, Culture and Youth 
Affairs, Government of Bihar, forwarded a list of the eligible students who 
were to appear in the examination of C.P. Ed and D.P. Ed. courses from different 
Colleges in the State of Bihar for. the academic sessions 1994-95 and 1995-
F 96 to the respondent-Board. 
On 26.06.2001, the respondent-Board wrote a letter to the Deputy 
Secretary (Art, Culture & Youth Affairs Department), Government of Bihar, 
in which it was stated that the list of the candidates of two colleges, namely, 
respondent-College and another college had been received but the list of 
G candidates of remaining three colleges was not received which was requested 
to be sent so that steps to hold the examination collectively could be taken. 
In reply to the above-said letter, the Deputy Secretary by letter dated 
5.10.2002 requested the Examination Committee of the respondent-Board to 
conduct the examination for 'ltudents of C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. course of the 
H 
890 
SUNIL KUMAR PARIMAL v. STA TE 
891 
respondent-College along with the examination proposed to be held for the A 
students of Government Health and Physical Training College. The Principal 
of the respondent-College on 8.10.2002 also wrote a letter to the Secretary 
of the respondent-Board bringing to his notice the sad and miserable plight 
of the appellants and requested respondent-Board to conduct the examination 
of those students along with the examination likely to be conducted for the B 
Government Health and Physical Education College. The respondent-Board 
in November, 2002 conducted the examinations for C.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses 
.for the students of Government Health and Physical Education College, but it 
refused to admit the appellants and other students to take the examinations. 
The appellants filled writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to allow C 
them to appear in the examination. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition 
of the appellants primarily on the ground that on and with effect from the day 
of enforcement of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the 
respondent-College was de-recognised and as a result thereof the respondent-
Board is not competent to allow the students to appear in the examination, 
who is pursuing or has pursued the course in a non-recognised institution. D 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence the present 
appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Despite clear and categorical instructions and repeated E 
suggestions by the Deputy Secretary (Art, Culture and Youth Affairs 
Department), Government of Bihar, by letter dated 5.10.2002 and also by the 
Secretary of the concerned Department in terms of Memo No.1172, the 
respondent-Board has failed to discharge its function and responsibility of 
holding the examination entrusted to it by the State Government, which has F 
resulted in irreparable loss to the appellants. The respondent-Board has not 
given any plausible and tenable explanation for debarring the appellants from 
taking examination with the students ofC.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses of the 
Government Health and Physical Training College. 
(Para 201 (899-B, CJ 
2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to G 
exercise jurisdiction under Art

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.