Patna High Court
Sudha Kumari vs The Chairman Bihar Sanskrit ... on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12764 of 2013
======================================================
Sudha Kumari, D/o Harekrishna Prasad Singh, Wife of Sri Arvind Kumar,
resident of village - Patan Bigha, Police Station -Islampur, District - Nalanda,
presently residing at Village - Bhane Bigha, P.S. Makhdumpur, District -
Jehanabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna
2. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
3. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Nalanda.
4. The District Education Officer, Nalanda.
5. The Headmaster, Baidic Sahitya Sanskrit High School, Attasarai, Islampur,
Nalanda.
6. The Headmaster, Nari Gyan Bharti, Sanskrit High School, Bhartigram,
Nalanda.
7. Sarita Kumari, Wife of Sunil Kumar, R/o Village - Bhane Bigha, Ward No.3
Nagar Panchayat Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, AC to GP-27
For the Vigilance : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
For B.S.S.B. : Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Rabindra Pd. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 21-01-2021
The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed
against the judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12764 of 2013, titled
as Sudha Kumari Vs. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
Shiksha Board, Patna & Ors., whereby the said writ petition
stood dismissed.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the considered view that no case for interference is made
out with the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 12764 of 2013, titled as Sudha Kumari Vs. The
Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna & Ors.
3. The writ-petitioner had approached the Court by
filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking quashing of Annexure-4 dated 23rd of November, 2012,
whereby petitioner's request for issuance of original certificate
for having cleared the examination for the course of Madhyama
stood rejected.
4. The facts of the case being that the
appellant/petitioner was a student of Madhyama in the Baidie
Sahitya High School, the examination for which is conducted by
the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. The petitioner
appeared and passed with First Division in the Madhyama
Examination-2000. The mark-sheet, provisional certificate and
the School Leaving Certificate was issued by the concerned
school. The petitioner then applied for the post of Anganwari
Sevika and as per the merit list, she was selected as Sevika. The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
problem arose when the petitioner was to produce original
certificate, and demanded the same from the Examination
Board, the Sanskrit Shiksha Board had submitted that no such
candidate in the name of the appellant had appeared in the
examination and the roll number that has been shown by the
appellant is the roll number of one Kumari Shalinta Suman.
5. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with
any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner, appellant
herein, and in Paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 has observed as under:
"7. The Court therefore directed the
counsel representing the Sanskrit Shiksha
Board to produce the original register from
where entries could be verified. The original
register for the year 2000 was produced
before the Court. The relevant entries were
shown not only to the Court but even to the
counsel for the petitioner on which counsel
for the petitioner reacted in a very
unprofessional and unbecoming manner. He
tried to hurl all kinds of accusation against
the Board and the counsel on record.
Obviously, it was a reaction against being
cornered on false pleadings and assertions,
which were made in the writ application to
beget a relief.
8. The Court after having verified the
register does opine that the register is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
authentic. The entries have been made in a
sequence. There is neither any cutting, over-
writing or insertion of any kind and that the
stand of the Board reflected in para 8, 9 and
10 of the counter affidavit is corroborated
thorough and through.
9. If this is the position then obviously
the petitioner has tried to use a forged or
fabricated Xerox copy of admit card or a
mark-sheet to beget a mark-sheet which is
not available to her. In fact, looking at the
admit card and the over-writing therein could
be an indicator that there is deliberate effort
of interpolation made by the petitioner or on
her behalf. Her sister was a candidate in the
said examination and based on the
documents of her sister, certain
interpolations have been made and writ
application filed by making all kinds of
allegations against the Sanskrit Shiksha
Board. Such conduct of the petitioner is
therefore condemnable and the petitioner
does not deserve any benefit or relief in view
of such controversial facts and
circumstances."
6. During the pendency of the present appeal, on 24th
of September, 2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had
passed an interim order, which reads as under:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
"In this case the present appellant is
claiming that she has done Madhyama
through the Vaidic Sahitya Sanskrit High
School, was allotted roll No. 127, Code
No.64, Registration No. 1029 of 2000. It has
been submitted that she was declared pass in
First Division and accordingly mark-sheet
was issued including the provisional
certificate. When finally she was selected as
Anganbari Sevika and she was to produce
original certificate, demanded the same, the
problem started taking plea that the aforesaid
Roll no. 127 was allotted to Kumari Shalinta
Suman and the Sanskrit Shiksha Board has
submitted that no such candidate in the name
of the appellant had appeared in the
examination. In support of the submission
learned counsel for the appellant attached the
mark-sheet, provisional certificate and admit
card wherein the name of the school has
shown as Vaidic Sahitya Sanskirt High
School, Attasarai and the information was
given by the Sanskirt Shiksha Board that the
roll number which has been shown by the
appellant is the roll number of Kumari
Shalinta Suman.
It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant
and her sister prosecuted their study in the
Vaidic Sahitya Sanskrit High School,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
Attasarai, the roll number of her sister was
128 whereas her roll number was 127.
Whereas Kumari Shalinta Suman has been
shown to be the student of Nari Gyan Bharti
Sanskrit High School, Bharti Gram, Nalanda.
This Court has directed the Sanskrit
Shiksha Board to produce the original record
maintaining the marks of the candidate.
From perusal of the same it appears that at
two places the name of Kumari Shalinta
and Serial No. 163 and in both the places the
registration number has been shown as 483
of 2000 whereas the registration number
which has been allotted to the present
appellant is 1029 of 2000.
From perusal of the record/register we
also do not find any person to whom the
Registration number has been allotted as
1029 of 2000 has been mentioned. The same
student, Registration No.1092 of 2000 has
been shown at two places vide serial No.
185, 221 at third place, with different name
but both registration number has been
shown, that itself creates a doubt on the
authenticity of the records maintained by the
Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The learned counsel
for the Sanskrit Shiksha Board submits that
the admit card that has been brought on
record is a fake admit card inasmuch as it
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
reflects that there is a cutting and overwriting
over the same.
Let the Sanskrit Shiksha Board file an
affidavit informing this Court that from
which number to which number/registration
number/roll number was granted to Vaidic
Sanskrit Shiksha High School and from
which number to which number registration
number/roll number was granted to Nari
Gyan Bharti Sanskrit School and also inform
this Court to whom the registration no. 1029
of 2000 was allotted with complete detail.
Also explain that registration number which
has been shown in record is not a seriatem
but it has shown in jumble manner.
Let the one copy of the register be
kept on record and second copy be handed
over to the counsel for the Sanskrit Shiksha
Board to file necessary affidavit. It would
also mention that whether any certificate has
been issued to Kumari Shalinta Suman
because at one place, Kumari Shalinta
Suman has been shown to have passed in the
First division and in the second place she has
been declared fail inasmuch as the Principal
of Nari Gyan Bharti Sanskrit High School,
Bharti Gram, Nalanda has filed its affidavit
wherein a letter no.18 dated 26.4.2013 of the
Headmaster has been attached reflects that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
onward was allotted to the students of that
school. It also appears that large number of
students were not allotted any marks
including Kumari Shalinta Suman.
Let affidavit also clarify as to whether
mark-sheet has been issued to Kumari
Shalinta Suman student of Nari Gyan Bharti
Sanskrit High School, Bharti Gram, Nalanda.
Let the affidavit be filed by the
Sanskrit Shiksha Board within four weeks.
List this case on 22.10.2019."
7. The report of the Vigilance Department, dated 6 th of
January, 2021, received in a sealed cover, opened during the
course of hearing, stands perused by us. The operative portion
thereof is extracted as under:
"([k) tsujy Vscqys'ku jftLVj esa jkSy
uEcj&127 ij lq/kk dqekjh] oSfnd lkfgR; laLd`r mPp
fo|ky;] vrkljk;] ftyk& ukyUnk dh Nk=k dh txg
jkSy uEcj& 163] dqekjh Lusgyrk lqeu] ukjh Kku
Hkkjrh ckfydk laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkkjrh xzke HkksHkh
uxjukSlk] ftyk& ukyUnk ds uke dh izfof"V
tkucw>dj xyr <ax ls fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ] iVuk
ds }kjk dh xbZ gSA lHkh laxr rF;ksa ls ;g izFke
n`"V;k izrhr gksrk gS fd Jh pUnzHkw"k.k >k] rRdk0 ijh{kk
izHkkjh ,oa Jh ujs'k izlkn JhokLro rRdk0 izHkkjh lfpo]
ds }kjk vius in dk Hkz"V nq:i;ksx dj ukjh Kku
Hkkjrh ckfydk laLd`r mPp fo|ky; Hkkjrh xzke ftyk&
ukyUnk dh vuqRrh.kZ Nk=k dqekjh Lusgyrk lqeu dks
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
izFke Js.kh esa mRrh.kZ djkus dk dk;Z fd;k gSA vr% bl
vkjksi esa (1) Jh pUnzHkw"k.k >k] rRdk0 ijh{kk izHkkjh] (2)
Jh ujs'k izlkn JhokLro rRdk0 izHkkjh lfpo] (3)
dqekjh Lusgyrk lqeu] ukjh Kku Hkjrh ckfydk laLd`r
mPp fo|ky; Hkkjrh xzke] HkksHkh uxjukSlk ftyk&
ukyUnk ,oa vU; ds fo:) /kkjk& [email protected]@471
Hk0n0fo0 ,oa 13 (2) lgifBr /kkjk& 13 (1) (Mh)
Hkz0fu0vf/k0 1988 (la'kksf/kr vf/k0 2018) ds fo:)
izkFkfedh ntZ dj dkaM dk vuqla/kku fd;k tk ldrk
gSA"
8. The investigation simply reveals the document
relied upon by the appellant not to have been issued by the
authorities i.e. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. Also, it is
recommended that an F.I.R. be registered against the erring
officers/official(s) of the Board as also the private parties.
9. As such, we dispose of the present appeal with
direction(s) that the Vigilance Department shall forthwith
register First Information Report in relation to the alleged forged
record prepared by the Institution imparting education to the
appellant; officers/officials of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board
as also any one of the private parties involved in such process.
10. Shri Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Vigilance
Department states that the F.I.R. shall be positively registered
within next two working days.
11. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department as
Patna High Court L.P.A No.107 of 2016 dt.21-01-2021
also the State undertakes to communicate the order to the
D.G.P., Bihar during the course of the day.
12. With the aforesaid direction(s), the Letters Patent
Appeal stands disposed of.
13. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Amrendra/P.K.P
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22.01.2021
Transmission Date N/A
