Sanjay Prabhat @ Sanjay Parvat vs Bihar School Examination Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19512 of 2024
======================================================
Sanjay Prabhat @ Sanjay Parvat S/o Dilip Kumar Resident of Ward No. 8,
Sahebpur Kamal, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar School Examination Board Sinha Library Road, Patna through its
Secretary.
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna
3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.
4. The In-Charge Principal, Inter College, Pipara, Nauranga, P.S. Chautham,
District-Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhu Prasun, Adv.
Ms. Renu Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Pulkit Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv.
For the BSEB : Mr. P. K Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Ranjan, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Roy, Adv.
For the Res. No. 4 : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Gupta, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-08-2026
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
2. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
2/18
Intermediate Examination in the year 2015 from Inter College,
Pipara, Nauranga, Khagaria, and was declared successful in
Second Division.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid facts have been brought on record by
the Examination Board by filing a counter affidavit.
6. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
3/18
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”.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. It is further submitted that, under the relevant

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
4/18
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.
10. 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.
11. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
5/18
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.
12. 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.
13. 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 .
14. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
6/18
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.
15. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
7/18
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.
16. 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.
17. Learned Advocate for the Board further submits

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
8/18
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.
18. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
9/18
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.
19. 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.
20. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
10/18
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.
21. 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.
22. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
11/18
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.
23. 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.
24. Since, in the case at hand, the petitioner had
appeared in the Secondary School Examination long back in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
12/18
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.
25. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
13/18
basis and statutory authority/regulation.
26. 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.
27. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
14/18
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. It would be worth benefiting to recapitulate the
observation of the legend Justice Krishna Iyer, J., rendered in

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
15/18
case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Gujarat Steel
Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 593 , which are
encapsulated hereinbelow:-
“73. While the remedy under
Article 226 is extraordinary and is of
Anglo-Saxon vintage, it is not a carbon
copy of English processes. Article 226 is
a sparing surgery but the lancet operates
where injustice suppurates. While
traditional restraints like availability of
alternative remedy hold back the court,
and judicial power should not ordinarily
rush in where the other two branches fear
to tread, judicial daring is not daunted
where glaring injustice demands even
affirmative action. The wide words of
Article 226 are designed for service of the
lowly numbers in their grievances if the
subject belongs to the court's province
and the remedy is appropriate to the
judicial process. There is a native hue
about Article 226, without being
anglophilic or anglophobic in attitude.
Viewed from this jurisprudential
perspective, we have to be cautious both
in not overstepping as if Article 226 were
as large as an appeal and not failing to
intervene where a grave error has crept
in. Moreover, we sit here in appeal over
the High Court's judgment. And an
appellate power interferes not when the
order appealed is not right but only when
it is clearly wrong. The difference is real,
though fine.
146. In the second chapter of
our sum-up, the first thing we decide is
that Article 226, however restrictive in
practice, is a power wide enough, in all
conscience, to be a friend in need when

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
16/18
the summons comes in a crisis from a
victim of injustice; and, more importantly,
this extraordinary reserve power is
unsheathed to grant final relief without
necessary recourse to a remand. What the
tribunal may, in its discretion, do, the
High Court too, under Article 226, can, if
facts compel, do.

31. 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.
32. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
17/18
the petitioner.
33. 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.
34. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.19512 of 2024 dt.31-08-2026
18/18
the applicant itself at the time of filing of the application.
35. With the aforesaid direction and necessary
observation, the present writ petition stands allowed.

(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date NA