Failure to seek scrutiny within the prescribed period bars belated challenge to examination marks.

The petitioner, appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in 2010, enrolled in the D.El.Ed. course conducted through SCERT and examined by the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB).

She passed the first and second semesters but was unsuccessful in several papers of the third semester examination held in 2016. She subsequently appeared in the re-examination conducted in 2018.

Although the result published on the SCERT website on 31 March 2019 showed her as having passed, the physical marksheet recorded her as unsuccessful in paper S3.6 by carrying forward her earlier marks.

She submitted representations to SCERT in 2019 and 2021, and SCERT wrote to the BSEB in April 2022 seeking correction.

The BSEB stated that candidates were given an opportunity to apply online for scrutiny between 3 and 12 March 2020, but the petitioner did not apply.

The petitioner sought a writ directing correction of her final D.El.Ed. marksheet.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for correction or scrutiny of her D.El.Ed. marksheet notwithstanding her failure to apply within the period specifically notified by the BSEB for scrutiny.

Whether the Court could direct re-evaluation or verification at a belated stage when the answer books had not been preserved and the scrutiny process had already concluded.

The Court applied the procedure prescribed by the BSEB for scrutiny of marks, under which candidates having grievances regarding their published results were required to submit an online application with the prescribed fee within the notified period of 3–12 March 2020.

It also applied Rule 26 of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964, which required preservation of answer books for three months from publication of the relevant examination results.

The governing procedural principle was that where an authority prescribes a specific procedure and time-limit for seeking scrutiny or correction, a candidate who fails to comply cannot ordinarily seek the same relief belatedly through a writ petition, particularly after completion of the scrutiny process and destruction or non-availability of the answer books.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s online result showed her as passed whereas the physical marksheet reflected failure in paper S3.6, and noted that she had pursued the matter through representations.

However, the BSEB had subsequently issued a public notice requiring all candidates whose results had been published up to 31 March 2019 to apply for scrutiny between 3 and 12 March 2020.

The petitioner admittedly did not avail that remedy, choosing instead to continue pursuing her representations before the authorities.

Since the notified scrutiny process had been completed, and the answer books were not required to be preserved beyond the period stipulated in Rule 26, the Court held that it could not now direct re-evaluation or scrutiny.

The Court therefore treated the petitioner’s failure to comply with the prescribed procedure as fatal to her claim at that stage.

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and any pending application was also disposed of.