Case Background
The petitioner is a candidate from the Backward Class category who applied for appointment as a Primary School Teacher (Class 1–5) pursuant to Advertisement No.26/2023 issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar.
The advertisement allowed even those candidates who were still pursuing their training course to apply. On this basis, the petitioner, an appearing candidate of the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) for the session 2021–2023, submitted her application.
She received her admit card, appeared in the School Teachers Recruitment Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), and was declared successful. The District Education Officer, Munger, then issued a counselling-cum-orientation letter. She participated in counselling, received a provisional appointment letter, and was sent for training at the District Education and Training Institute (DIET), Banka.
After successfully completing this training, she was allotted Middle School, SC Tola, Gaura, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger, as her place of posting. However, when she went to submit her joining at the school, the Headmaster refused to accept it.
The reason was that in the result of her D.El.Ed 2nd year examination, no practical/internal marks were shown in any of her subjects, and she was treated as having failed. According to her, this was due to a mistake by the Teachers Training College, which had shown her as absent in all practical examinations.
The petitioner approached the college, which acknowledged the mistake and informed the Bihar School Examination Board (the Board) by letter dated 20.10.2023. Despite this, the error was not corrected, and the petitioner remained ineligible for joining. She therefore approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition sought two main directions. First, a direction to the respondent authorities of the Board to issue a corrected mark-sheet and certificate of D.El.Ed 2nd year for session 2021–2023, in which the petitioner had appeared through Jajba Teachers Training College, Khizersarai, Gaya. Second, a direction to the State authorities, including the District Education Officer, Munger, and the Headmaster of Middle School, SC Tola, Gaura, Munger, to accept her joining.
A counter affidavit was filed by the Bihar School Examination Board. The Board did not dispute that the petitioner had appeared in the School Teachers Recruitment Examination as an appearing D.El.Ed candidate and that she had been found successful in that recruitment examination. However, the Board stated that her appointment could not be implemented because she had been declared fail in the D.El.Ed examination.
From the Board’s records, it appeared that the petitioner, a D.El.Ed candidate from Jajba Teachers Training College, had appeared in the 2nd year examination in 2023 under Roll Code 81804, Roll No.211023. According to the Board, she did not appear in the internal subject examination of subjects S-1 to S-9, Sep 02 (External) and Sep 02 (Internal).
The Board admitted that, after publication of the result, the Principal of Jajba Teachers Training College, by letter no.105 dated 20.10.2023, informed the Board that the petitioner had in fact appeared in the practical examinations of all subjects, but her marks were not entered in the Standard Marks Foil at the relevant time. The college requested correction.
The Board clarified that while it conducted the theoretical examinations, the internal/practical examinations were conducted by the respective colleges, based on which the Board published results. When the Board received requests from various colleges for rectification of results, it constituted a Five Members Committee to examine the genuineness of such claims.
The petitioner’s case was one of the matters placed before this Committee. The Committee examined the Pre-printed OMR-based Standard Marks Foil sent by the college. For Roll No.211023, corresponding to the petitioner, the Committee noticed that the relevant column had been left blank in all subjects and that there were signs of application of an eraser. On this basis, the Committee concluded that the omission did not appear to be a simple human error and that there seemed to be an attempt, after publication of the result, to extend marks for some ulterior reasons.
The Committee’s report dated 18.12.2023 led the Board to reject the request for correction of the petitioner’s D.El.Ed result. The Board communicated this decision by letter dated 27.12.2023 and also recommended action against the Heads/Principals of the concerned colleges.
This decision of the Five Members Committee and the Board’s letter dated 27.12.2023 were specifically challenged before the Patna High Court by filing I.A. No.1 of 2025. The Court, in order to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim and that of the Teachers Training College, directed the college to file a counter affidavit and to produce the original D.El.Ed marks register.
On behalf of the college (respondent no.6), it was submitted that the petitioner had been present in all internal examinations conducted by the college. Due to inadvertence at the college level, she was shown as absent in all examinations in the Standard Marks Foil. Once the error came to light, the college wrote to the Examination Controller of the Board on 20.10.2023 explaining that the marks of all practical subjects of the petitioner had not been entered in the Standard Marks Foil.
The college further stated that, upon the Board’s letter dated 10.11.2023, it produced the original marks register and certified copies to show that the petitioner was present in the internal examinations and had been allotted marks. Despite this, the Five Members Committee concluded, without hearing the college, that there was use of an eraser and manipulation, and branded the college’s conduct as fraudulent.
The Court carefully examined the original D.El.Ed marks register, which was produced pursuant to its direction. The register contained internal/practical marks of D.El.Ed candidates from the session 2016 onwards up to 1st year 2024–2026. The petitioner, with Roll No.21103 for the session 2021–2023, was shown as present in all internal/practical examinations of subjects S-1 to S-9, Sep 02 (External) and Sep 02 (Internal). Her marks were duly entered.
Importantly, just below the petitioner’s name, another candidate, Smita Kumari, who was also from the 2021–2023 D.El.Ed batch, was shown absent throughout in the marks register produced before the Court. Looking at this, the Court observed that there was every chance that the mistake had occurred inadvertently while filling the Standard Marks Foil sent to the Board for final result preparation.
The Court further scrutinised the attendance sheet of the 2023 internal examination for D.El.Ed, which clearly showed that the petitioner was present. Some other candidates, namely Shabnam Khatoon, Nasreen Perween and Amit Kumar, were shown absent in the attendance register, and their absence also tallied with the original marks register for 2nd year (2023). This cross-verification strengthened the genuineness of the petitioner’s case.
The Court also noted the chronology of the petitioner’s efforts. As soon as she came to know of her D.El.Ed result, she approached the college. After verifying its records, the college accepted its mistake and immediately wrote to the Board on 20.10.2023. The Board acknowledged this letter on the same date. On 17.11.2023, the Board received the original marks register and other documents from the college.
Despite this material, the Board’s Committee concluded that there was use of an eraser and manipulation by the college, and rejected the claim. Significantly, the Court found no discussion in the Committee’s report explaining why the certified copy of the marks register produced by the college was not accepted. There was “no whisper” or finding on this crucial aspect.
The Court rejected the Committee’s assumption that, because the petitioner had been shown absent in all internal examinations in the Standard Marks Foil, it could not be a human error. The Court held that this reasoning did not stand to reason, particularly when the original marks register clearly showed her presence and marks, and there was no overwriting or manipulation.
The Court underscored that there was no allegation that the petitioner, in collusion with the college, had manipulated the marks statement, nor was there any such finding in the Five Members Committee’s verification. In such circumstances, the inadvertent mistake of the Teachers Training College could not be allowed to jeopardise the petitioner’s career.
At the very beginning of the judgment, the Court reminded that “to err is human” and that when an inadvertent omission is brought to the Court’s notice, it is the Court’s duty to ensure that a person does not suffer because of such a mistake. The Court held that this principle applies to the State and its functionaries as well.
On these findings, the Court held that the petitioner’s claim had substance. It directed the Bihar School Examination Board to make necessary corrections in the petitioner’s D.El.Ed mark-sheet and certificate as per the original marks register of the Teachers Training College. This exercise is to be completed preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court’s order, and the corrected documents are to be handed over to the petitioner.
The petitioner is then to submit the corrected certificate along with the Court’s order to the District Education Officer, Munger. On receipt, the District Education Officer must direct the Headmaster of the concerned school to accept the petitioner’s joining, based on the final result published under Advertisement No.26/2023 and the provisional appointment letter. This is to be done within a further period of four weeks.
The Court also directed that the original marks statement register be returned to the Advocate for the respondent college. With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for teacher trainees and job aspirants whose careers can be derailed by clerical mistakes in examination records. The Patna High Court has made it clear that students should not suffer for errors committed by training colleges or examination authorities.
The Court insisted on looking at primary records such as the original marks register and attendance sheets, rather than blindly accepting a technical committee’s suspicion of manipulation. It showed that administrative committees must give reasons if they reject authentic records produced by institutions.
For candidates recruited under Advertisement No.26/2023 and similar recruitments, the judgment demonstrates that courts can step in when genuine mistakes in academic records block appointment, especially where there is no allegation of collusion or fraud by the candidate.
The ruling also sends a message to examination boards that principles of fairness and natural justice require them to hear institutions and consider original records before branding conduct as fraudulent or rejecting correction requests.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the Bihar School Examination Board was justified in refusing to correct the petitioner’s D.El.Ed practical marks, thereby treating her as failed and blocking her teacher appointment, despite the college’s admission of an inadvertent error and production of original records.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the original marks register and attendance sheets clearly showed the petitioner’s presence and marks in internal examinations, and there was no evidence of manipulation. The refusal to correct the result was unsustainable. -
Issue: Whether a candidate can be denied joining as a teacher when an error in internal marks entry is solely attributable to the Teachers Training College and not to any fault of the candidate.
Answer: No. The Court held that for an inadvertent mistake of the college, the petitioner’s career could not be put in jeopardy. It directed correction of the mark-sheet and acceptance of her joining.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No earlier cases or precedents are expressly cited or relied upon in this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1036 of 2024
Case Title: Sima Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 25-11-2025
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 18
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Raghwanand, GA 11; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, AC to GA 11
- For the Bihar School Examination Board: Mr. Ajay, Senior Advocate
- For respondent no.6 (Jajba Teachers Training College): Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging refusal of correction in D.El.Ed examination results and consequential non-acceptance of joining as a primary school teacher.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to access the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
