Heena Kumari, vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1170 of 2023
======================================================
Heena Kumari, Wife of D/o Ramakant Mishra, Wife of Raj Kumar Thakur
Resident of Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Primary Education, Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT),
Mahendru, Patna- 800006.
4. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Controller of Examination, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Pusa,
Samastipur.
7. The District Education Officer, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate
For the Res. No.3 : Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC-13
For the BSEB : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Kanupriya, Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
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.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to correct/rectify the error in
the final mark statement of the petitioner of

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
2/8
D.El.Ed. (ODL) issued by the Bihar School
Examionation Board.”
3. 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
st nd
successful in 1 and 2 semester of the Course and in June 2016,
rd
the examination for the 3 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
3/8
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.
4. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
4/8
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

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
5/8
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
5. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
6/8
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
7/8
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.
CONSIDERATION
8. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.1170 of 2023 dt.28-08-2026
8/8
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.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.09.2026
Transmission Date NA