Courts will not reopen decades-old examination results after the examining board has completed its inquiry.

The petitioners claimed that they appeared in the Intermediate Science Examination in 1994 and were declared first-division pass, relying on marksheets they said had been issued through their college.

They later sought original certificates from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB).

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Board to verify the genuineness of the documents and decide their grievance.

Following an inquiry, the Board issued an order dated 13 March 2018 stating that it could not verify their results because relevant records, including the tabular register, were unavailable, and treated them as failed.

The petitioners challenged that order, seeking correction of their results and issuance of certificates.

They said they first learned of the order through the Board’s show-cause in contempt proceedings; the present petition followed after the contempt case was disposed of with liberty to challenge the order.

1. Whether the Board’s order treating the petitioners as failed, on account of the absence of records verifying their claimed results, should be set aside.

2. Whether, after the Board had conducted an inquiry and given its decision, the Court should direct a further inquiry or declare the petitioners passed nearly thirty years after the examination.

The Court applied the principles of delay and laches in writ proceedings and the limits of judicial review where an administrative decision has been made following an inquiry directed by the Court.

It treated the earlier order in CWJC No. 19083 of 2016 as requiring the Board to verify the documents and decide the grievance—not as requiring it to accept the petitioners’ claimed results.

No statute or precedent was cited as the basis of the decision.

The Court noted that the Board had acted pursuant to the earlier direction, examined the available records and explained that it could not verify the petitioners’ results because the relevant records were unavailable and the college had not supplied them.

The petitioners had not challenged the 2018 order until after pursuing contempt proceedings, and the present challenge was brought after further delay.

Given the passage of nearly thirty years and the inquiry already undertaken, the Court found no basis to require a fresh inquiry or direct the Board to declare the petitioners passed.

No further inquiry, result correction or issuance of certificates was ordered.