Sanjay Prabhat @ Sanjay Parvat vs Bihar School Examination Board & Ors.

Date : 31-08-2026 Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

The petitioner before this Court claims to have passed the Secondary School Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board (for short ‘the Board’) in the year 2013 in First Division, bearing Roll Code No. 26504 and Roll No. 0599. On the basis of the provisional certificate duly issued by the Board, the petitioner thereafter appeared in the Intermediate Examination in the year 2015 from Inter College, Pipara, Nauranga, Khagaria, and was declared successful in Second Division.

The petitioner thereafter pursued higher studies and, having qualified in the NEET examination, secured admission to the MBBS course at Nalanda Medical College. He successfully completed his MBBS course in the year 2023 and is presently preparing for Post Graduate medical courses.

After having pursued higher studies, the petitioner approached the Board by filing an application seeking correction of his name as well as publication of his final result. The name of the petitioner was duly corrected by the Examination Board. However, his prayer for publication of the final result came to be rejected vide Memo No. 25 dated 22.05.2025. The petitioner was informed that, upon scrutiny, it had transpired that he had secured only 5 marks in the theory paper of Physics and his total marks in Physics were 41. Consequently, he was declared unsuccessful in the Matriculation Examination.

The aforesaid facts have been brought on record by the Examination Board by filing a counter affidavit.

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, a direction upon the Board to make necessary corrections in its official records with regard to the marks obtained by him in Physics in the Intermediate Examination, 2015, wherein his marks have been shown as 41 and his result as “Fail”.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that, according to the provisional mark-sheet issued to him, he had secured 59 marks in Physics and had accordingly been declared successful. The provisional mark-sheet, along with the relevant Tabulation Register pertaining to the examination, has been brought on record as Annexures P/1 and P/2 to the writ petition.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had never applied for scrutiny of his marks in any subject. According to him, the petitioner approached the Board for the first time in the year 2024 seeking correction of his name and publication of his final result. It is further submitted that, at no point of time, the petitioner was informed, either by the Headmaster of the institution through which he had appeared in the examination or directly by the Board, that his marks in Physics has subsequently been reduced from 59 to 41.

It is further submitted that, under the relevant Regulations of the Bihar School Examination Board, a candidate seeking scrutiny of marks in any subject is required to submit an application within the prescribed period of 30 days and for the first time, the petitioner has approached the Board only for correction of his name and final result. However, the Board has sought to rely upon a notice published in the newspaper on 21.05.2015, whereby candidates who were dissatisfied with their marks were required to submit applications along with the requisite fee by 31.05.2015.

According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the relevant record having been prepared even before the expiry of the period prescribed for seeking scrutiny, the subsequent reduction of marks from 59 to 41 raises a serious doubt regarding the manner in which the scrutiny was undertaken. To strengthen the submission, he further urged that the Tabulation Register reflecting the reduced marks was prepared even prior to the expiry of the last date prescribed for submission of applications for scrutiny, even in terms of the public notice dated 21.05.2015.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that nothing has been brought on record by the Board to demonstrate that the petitioner had, in fact, submitted any application seeking scrutiny of his marks. In the absence of any such application, it is contended that the action of the Board in suo motu altering the marks awarded to the petitioner in Physics is wholly unsustainable, both on facts and in law.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon certain decisions of this Court wherein, in similar circumstances, marks awarded to candidates were subsequently reduced by the Board and the concerned candidates were compelled to approach this Court. It is submitted that, having found the action of the Board to be arbitrary and its records to be deficient, this Court, in such cases, has not only directed correction of the marks but has also imposed costs upon the Board.

To support the aforesaid contention, reliance has also been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Saurabh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 6173 of 2018, Bhavya Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 8387 of 2018 and Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 7185 of 2019.

Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the Board, while controverting the aforesaid submissions, submits that there was no occasion for the Board to scrutinize the marks of the petitioner unless an application for scrutiny had been submitted by him. It is contended that the petitioner, having appeared in the Intermediate Examination in the year 2015, had duly submitted an application seeking scrutiny of his marks in all the subjects. Pursuant thereto, his answer-sheet were scrutinized and it was found that he had secured only 5 marks in the theory paper of Physics, resulting in an aggregate of 41 marks in the subject. Consequently, the petitioner was rightly declared unsuccessful.

Referring to the Tabulation Register and the scrutiny data maintained by the Board, learned Advocate for the Board submits that the petitioner had applied for scrutiny in all the subjects and upon scrutiny, no change was found necessary in any subject except Physics. Accordingly, the marks in Physics were revised from 59 to 41 in accordance with the result of scrutiny. It is further submitted that after scrutiny, the revised result along with the scrutiny data was duly forwarded to the concerned school and, therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he remained unaware of the revision of his marks. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner has approached this Court after more than a decade, despite being aware of the revised result. He further submits that, under Rule 26 of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964, the Board is required to preserve the answer-sheet only for the prescribed period of three months after the examination. Consequently, at this belated stage, the Board is not in a position to produce the original answer-sheet for verification.

The petitioner has neither challenged the Tabulation Register nor the scrutiny data relating to the Intermediate Annual Examination, 2015, nor has he specifically challenged the revised result whereby he was declared unsuccessful. In the absence of any challenge to the foundational records on the basis of which the revised result was prepared, no positive direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Board is under an obligation to scrutinize the marks of a candidate whenever a valid application for scrutiny is received. According to learned counsel, in view of the complaints received regarding the result, the Board had published a notice in the daily newspaper on 21.05.2015 inviting applications for scrutiny by 31.05.2015. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner and other candidates submitted applications for scrutiny. After completion of the scrutiny process, revised results were prepared and published.

Learned Advocate for the Board further submits that the revised result itself contains the details of the earlier result as well as the revised marks and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the revised result is not based upon the correct record is wholly misconceived. The unexplained delay of more than a decade, according to learned counsel, also raises a serious question regarding the bona fides of the petitioner, particularly when he did not challenge the revised result at the relevant point of time. It is lastly submitted that the decisions relied upon by learned Advocate for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and have been rendered in entirely different factual circumstances. The present case, according to the Board, involves a specific case of scrutiny pursuant to an application submitted by the petitioner himself, followed by preparation and publication of the revised result. It is therefore, submitted that the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

This Court, after having meticulously heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, is of the view that the peculiar facts of the case warrants an adjudication based upon equity. This is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared in the Secondary School Examination duly conducted by the Board in the year 2013, and he was provisionally declared successful, having marks of first division, based upon which he took admission in Intermediate in the year 2015 and subsequently, qualified NEET Examination, and upon his admission at MBBS at Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, he successfully completed MBBS course in the year 2023.

What is disputed herein is that there is nothing on record which contemplates and conclude that the petitioner had applied for the scrutiny of marks, and on his request, the scrutiny has been affected, wherein the marks in the subject of Physics has been reduced from 59 to 41, and accordingly the petitioner has been declared fail in the subject of Physics.

The contention of the Board that upon proper scrutiny, the revised result along with the scrutiny data was duly forwarded to the concerned school is also not supported by any material, much less on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the In-charge Principal of the School, who on affidavit informed this Court that the relevant records were not available in the office when he took charge of the school, in question, in presence of the District Education Officer, Khagaria and Block Education Officer, Chautham. The list of inventory, which was handed over to him does not whisper about the record of the relevant period. No mark-sheet, original certificates, registration card and provisional certificates are found available in the school. There is also nothing on the record, either in possession of the Board or the school, that at any point of time, the revised result upon scrutiny has ever been communicated to the petitioner.

In the aforesaid premise, accepting the contention of the Board would certainly affect the right and interest of the petitioner, which may also lead to undermine the future and academic prospect of the petitioner.

Before proceeding further, it would also be pertinent to take note of the relevant prescriptions of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as, “Regulations, 1964”). Chapter 5 of the Regulations, 1964 deals with Conduct of Examinations and Rule 17(a) thereof, clearly stipulates that the institution sending up candidates for the Board's examination will be informed of the result of all successful candidates and will be supplied with the marks of all the candidates enrolled from those institutions for the examination concerned on payment of the prescribed fee. Rule 17 (b) further speaks that the result of the examination of a candidate may be sent direct to the candidate from the office of the Board after its publication, if prescribed fee is paid in advance. Rule 19 empowers the Board to conduct enquiry even after examination is over, if there is misrepresentation or fraud.

Now coming to Rule 20, which talks about “Scrutiny”; candidates, who desire to get their answer books scrutinized may apply for the same within one month of date of publication of the Board's result along with a prescribed fee. However, no such application will be entertained unless the same is forwarded by the Head of Institution from which the candidate appeared, with a certificate to the effect that he is convinced that there is strong and sufficient ground for such scrutiny. The scrutiny will not imply re-examination of the answer-books of a candidate and it will merely be a check to ensure whether there has been any mistake in totalling the marks assigned to individual question or in carrying them over or any omission to mark a question or part thereof. Rule 20(c) is of utmost importance for the present matter, which mandates and obliges the Board that the result of scrutiny will be communicated to the Head of the Institution and the candidate concerned.

Since, in the case at hand, the petitioner had appeared in the Secondary School Examination long back in the year 2013 and Rule 26 of the Regulations, 1964 clearly says that answer-books of a candidate shall be preserved only for three months from the date of the publication of the results of the examination concerned. Therefore, there can be no mandamus directing the Board to produce the answer-books. However, the relevant aspect which is required to be looked into, that the Board is neither in a position to satisfy the Court as to whether the petitioner has ever asked for or requested to scrutinize the marks of any of the subjects, much less of Physics, through the school concerned by submitting requisite fee, or upon scrutiny the same has been communicated to the petitioner. This Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the Board.

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is imperative that the Board has failed to produce any cogent material to show the compelling circumstances in which the Board scrutinized answer-books/mark of the petitioner, subsequent to the publication of his provisional result, wherein he has been declared successful and obtained the marks of first division. The alteration in the marks of the petitioner upon scrutiny and issuance of the revised mark-sheet by reducing the marks of the petitioner in the subject of Physics from 59 to 41, is in the opinion of this Court, was carried out unilaterally without any basis and statutory authority/regulation.

Further, contention of the Board with regard to the delay in approaching the Board for correction of name and the marks in Physics subject mentioned in the tabulation register, also does not persuade this Court in view of the fact that he has been informed for the first time regarding reduction of the marks in the subject of Physics, when the petitioner had filed an application for issuance of the final result in the year 2024. The petitioner has also produced the provisional certificate as well as the copy of the relevant batch of the tabulation register wherein, the marks were correctly mentioned and the error which was crept therein is only with respect to his name, has been erroneously mentioned as Sanjay Parvat in place of Sanjay Prabhat.

It is also to be noted that the order of the Additional Secretary-cum-In-charge Officer, Munger Examination, Bihar School Examination Board dated 22.05.2025, whereby the petitioner has been informed that his claim for issuance of the final result has been rejected on account of the fact that he secured only 41 marks in the Physics and thereby declared fail, has also been put to challenge by filing an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2026.

Hence, the contention of the learned Advocate for the Board that in absence of any challenge to the fundamental records on the basis of which the revised result was prepared and thus no positive direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner, also finds no merit consideration.

While exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is conscious of the power envisaged under the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has spelt out that merely because there is no express provision in the Constitution giving the High Courts power to pass such orders as may be deemed necessary for doing "complete justice" in any case or matter pending before it, the same should not be clinching. It is for consideration whether such a power should not be conceded to the High Courts, because a very small segment of the Indian litigants can, afford to fight legal battle in Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, because of the expenditure involved. So, a common man would be deprived of getting "complete justice" if the High Courts are not empowered to do so.

It would be worth benefiting to recapitulate the observation of the legend Justice Krishna Iyer, J., rendered in case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 593, which are encapsulated hereinbelow:-

Besides the aforesaid facts and the position in law, as prescribed in the statutory Regulations, 1964; it is also to be noticed at this juncture that had the petitioner been informed at the relevant point of time about reduction of the marks in the subject of Physics upon scrutiny, immediately in the year 2013, as also the consequent revised result declaring him fail, the petitioner would have been necessarily appeared in the supplementary/compartmental examination and/or had been in a position to contest the same before the respondent Board or the Court of law.

The petitioner, after passage of time, moved far ahead in his life and now he has been awarded a degree of Doctor after successful completion of MBBS course through a reputed institution in the year 2023, itself. Thus, in view of the totality of the circumstances, the revised result declaring the petitioner fail unilaterally by the Board behind his back in the considered opinion of the matter is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Besides the equity also comes in favor of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner's initial result and the marks awarded through the provisional mark-sheet/certificate in the Secondary School Examination, 2013 will take precedence over the revised result and will hold the field good for future academic purposes. The Board, hereinafter, is directed to issue original certificate based upon the earlier mark-sheet and tabulation register of the petitioner with necessary correction in his name, as has been sought for by the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Before parting with this case, considering the nature of the dispute and the statutory prescription of the Regulations, 1964, especially Rule 20(c) thereof, as also to save the interest of the bona fide and genuine candidates, in case of any request at the hands of a candidate for necessary correction of the particulars of students or scrutiny of the marks, the Board or the concerned institution, from where the candidate was last sent up to take the Board's examination shall henceforth communicate the decision regarding change or no change within a stipulated period in any of the mode, either through online or registered post, for which necessary fee must be deposited by the applicant itself at the time of filing of the application.

With the aforesaid direction and necessary observation, the present writ petition stands allowed.