Heena Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 28-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Council of Education Research and Training.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave her joining as a Panchayat Teacher in the year 2010 at Primary School Kodariya Goth, Samastipur. Since, the petitioner was an untrained teacher, therefore, as per the scheme of the State Government, she took admission in Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) in PUSA, Samastipur. The examination was conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna under the SCERT. The petitioner was declared successful in 1^st and 2^nd semester of the Course and in June 2016, the examination for the 3^rd semester was held, which consisted of 6 papers. The petitioner could clear only one paper i.e. S3.5 and could not clear the rest of the papers. The examination was again notified and conducted in the year 2018. The petitioner also submitted her application for appearing in the examination and admit card was issued to her. The result of the examination was published online on the website of the SCERT on 31.03.2019, wherein the petitioner was declared to have passed. After publication of the result, when the mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner, she was shown to have not cleared one of the papers i.e. course code S3.6 and the marks entered into the same was the marks, which she had obtained in the examination held in 2016. The petitioner submitted her application/representation before the Director, SCERT, Patna along with relevant documents on 24.11.2019, with a request to make necessary correction in her marks. The DIET, PUSA, Samastipur compiled all the applications received from the examinees regarding correction in the final marksheet and the same was sent to the Director, State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT), Patna vide letter no. 538 dated 04.12.2019, which also included the application/representation submitted by the petitioner. When no action was taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner, she again filed a representation on 22.12.2021 before the Director, SCERT. Vide letter no. 702 dated 18.04.2022, the SCERT, Patna wrote a letter to the Controller of Examination, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna for making necessary corrections in the marksheet of the students. It is the case of the petitioner that despite her being declared pass in the examination, result for which was published on the website of the SCERT, when the mark-sheet was provided to her, she was declared fail in one of the papers.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined in service in 2010 and as per the policy of the State Government for completing the D.El.Ed. Course for obtaining training, she was permitted to appear in the examination and when the results were published, she was declared pass, however when the physical copy of the results was handed over to her, she was declared fail in one of the papers i.e. S3.6, in which she was awarded the marks, which she has obtained in 2016. He submits that the petitioner submitted an application/representation, however no decision was taken on the same and due to fault on the part of the authorities of the BSEB as well as the SCERT, the petitioner has been forced to suffer and she is being given the lower pay scale, although the similarly situated persons, who had appeared along with the petitioner, are being given higher pay scale. He further submits that if action would have been taken on time on the representation submitted by the petitioner before the SCERT and the communication sent by the SCERT to the BSEB, the grievance of the petitioner would have got resolved and when no action was taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has been forced to file the present writ petition. He next submits that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, a stand has been taken that the copy of the said examination has already been destroyed and the petitioner, along with other similarly situated candidates, were given opportunity to apply for scrutiny. He submits that since the petitioner was declared pass in the examination, therefore there was no question of the petitioner submitting her application for scrutiny, since the scrutiny is for correction of marks and not for a candidate, who has been declared pass and later on was declared fail

Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the BSEB, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5, would submit that after publication of the result, an opportunity was granted to the candidates like the petitioner, whose marks were required to be verified/corrected. A notice was published in the daily newspaper and the candidates were directed to submit their application, along with the requisite application fee for scrutiny of the marks. The online applications were invited on 03.03.2020 and the last date for submission of the application was 12.03.2020. Total 1280 applications were received and after scrutiny, the same were duly resolved/redressed. He submits that although the results were declared on 31.03.2019, opportunity to submit application was given w.e.f. 03.03.2020 to 12.03.2020 and the process thereafter was completed long back in 2020, however the petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2023. He submits that there is provision as per Rule 26 of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964 that the answer books of the candidates shall be preserved for a period of three months from the date of publication of results of the examination concerned. In the present case, the result of the examination was published on 31.03.2019 and the period of scrutiny was over in March 2020, therefore, there is no question of preserving the answer-sheet of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates at this belated stage.

The learned senior counsel for the BSEB further submits that a supplementary examination has been conducted in October 2025, in which the petitioner has also appeared, however the results have yet not been declared on account of certain pending litigations before this Hon’ble Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and now, the results are expected to be published.

The learned counsel for the SCERT submits that a notice/advertisement was issued on 28.02.2020 in the daily newspaper (Hindustan) by the BSEB, wherein the candidates, who had appeared in the examination pursuant to the D.El.Ed. Course for the session 2013-15, 2016-18 and 2017-2018. The result of the said examinations were published on 31.10.2018, 27.11.2018 and 31.03.2019 respectively. The candidates were directed to submit their online application form along with the requisite fee w.e.f. 03.03.2020 to 12.03.2020, for scrutiny of their answer-sheet. The petitioner, despite being declared fail and the result been published on 31.03.2019, did no choose to file her application for scrutiny, therefore, now she cannot be granted the relief, for which she has filed the present writ petition.

Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that no doubt the petitioner was appointed in 2010 and she was an untrained teacher. In terms of the Rules/Guidelines of the State Government, she took admission in D.El.Ed. course and appeared in the examination conducted by the Board in 2018. The results were published on the website of the SCERT, in which she was declared pass, however when the physical copy of the result was provided to the petitioner, she was declared fail in one of the papers i.e. S3.6. An advertisement/notice was published on 28.02.2020 by the Bihar School Examination Board, whereby the candidates, whose results were published till 31.03.2019, were directed to submit their application for scrutiny of their marks, if they were not satisfied with the marks, granted by the Board. In terms thereof, it was mandatory for the candidates, who had any grievance with their results, to submit application. The petitioner was also required to submit her online application in between 03.03.2020 to 12.03.2020, after depositing the requisite fee. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner did not submit her application and kept on pursuing the matter before the authorities, which did not ill any result.

In the considered opinion of this Court, when the petitioner along with others was required to do specific thing, which she failed to do, then no relief can be granted to her, at this stage, by directing for re-evaluation/scrutiny of her mark-sheet. She was required to catch the bus, however she missed the bus. Now, the bus cannot be reversed to enable the petitioner to board at this belated stage.

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed of.