After MBBS, Bihar HC directs BSEB to honour doctor’s original Class 10 marks after unexplained reduction from 59 to 41 in Physics

The petitioner claimed to have passed the Bihar School Examination Board’s Secondary School Examination, 2013, in First Division under Roll Code No. 26504 and Roll No. 0599.

On the basis of the provisional certificate issued by the Board, he appeared in and passed the Intermediate Examination, 2015, and subsequently qualified NEET, completed his MBBS from Nalanda Medical College in 2023, and pursued further medical studies.

In 2024, the petitioner approached the Board seeking correction of his name and publication of his final result.

Although his name was corrected, the Board rejected publication of the final result by Memo No. 25 dated 22 May 2025, stating that scrutiny had revealed that he had obtained only 5 marks in the Physics theory paper and 41 marks in Physics overall, rendering him unsuccessful.

The petitioner relied on his provisional mark-sheet and the relevant tabulation register, which recorded 59 marks in Physics and showed him as successful.

The Board asserted that the petitioner had applied for scrutiny in all subjects, pursuant to which his Physics marks were reduced from 59 to 41 and a revised result was prepared and forwarded to the school.

The school’s In-charge Principal, however, stated on affidavit that the relevant records, including mark-sheets, certificates, registration cards and provisional certificates, were unavailable when he assumed charge.

1. Whether the Bihar School Examination Board could validly reduce the petitioner’s Physics marks from 59 to 41 and declare him unsuccessful without producing material showing that he had applied for scrutiny in accordance with the applicable Regulations?

2. Whether the Board’s failure to communicate the result of scrutiny and the revised result to the petitioner rendered the alteration of his marks arbitrary and legally unsustainable?

3. Whether, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the High Court could grant final relief under Article 226 despite the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court?

The Court applied the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964.

Rule 17 requires the Board to communicate examination results and marks to the concerned institution and, where prescribed, directly to the candidate.

Rule 19 permits the Board to conduct an inquiry after the examination in cases involving misrepresentation or fraud.

Rule 20 permits scrutiny only upon an application made within one month of publication of the result, forwarded by the Head of the Institution with the prescribed certification and fee; scrutiny is limited to checking errors in totaling, carrying over marks, or omission to mark answers, and Rule 20(c) mandates communication of the scrutiny result to both the institution and the candidate.

Rule 26 requires preservation of answer-books only for three months after publication of the result.

The Court also relied on the broad remedial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, including the power to grant final relief where the facts disclose grave injustice, as explained in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCC 593.

The Court found that the Board failed to produce cogent material establishing that the petitioner had submitted an application for scrutiny, paid the requisite fee, or obtained the required certification from the Head of the Institution.

Although the Board relied on its tabulation and scrutiny data, it did not establish the foundational fact that scrutiny had been validly initiated at the petitioner’s request.

Further, the Board could not demonstrate that the revised result had been communicated to the petitioner, while the school’s affidavit confirmed that the relevant records were unavailable.

Since Rule 20(c) expressly required communication of the scrutiny result to the candidate, the unilateral reduction of marks from 59 to 41, without proof of a valid scrutiny application or communication, was held arbitrary and unsupported by statutory authority.

The Court also rejected the delay objection because the petitioner claimed to have learned of the reduction only when he sought publication of his final result in 2024.

Given that he had relied on the provisional result for higher education, completed his MBBS, and would have had an opportunity to take a supplementary examination or challenge the revised result had he been informed earlier, the Court invoked equity and its Article 226 jurisdiction to prevent serious prejudice.

The Board was directed to issue the petitioner’s original certificate on the basis of the earlier result and to correct his name from “Sanjay Parvat” to “Sanjay Prabhat,” preferably within four weeks of receipt or production of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

The Court further directed that, in future cases involving correction of particulars or scrutiny of marks, the Board or the concerned institution must communicate the decision regarding change or no change to the candidate through online mode or registered post, upon payment of the prescribed fee at the time of application.