Case Background
The dispute arose from a press release issued by the Bihar School Examination Board on 3 March 2017, bearing No. 19/2017. In that press release, the Board announced that 150 students had filled online forms from two different schools, having two different registration numbers. The Board decided to cancel the candidature of all these 150 students and uploaded their details on its website. The writ petitioner was one of these 150 students.
The writ petitioner stated that she had studied at Aditya Singh High School, Hisua, Nawada in 2015. After passing her secondary examination in 2015, she took admission in the Intermediate course at Magadh Central Secondary School, Hisua, Nawada in 2015. She filled the form for registration for the Intermediate Examination, 2017 and was allotted Registration No. 0027–2015.
Challenging the Board’s press release and the cancellation of her candidature, she first approached the Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 7717 of 2017. In that writ petition, she prayed for quashing that part of the list which showed that she had two registration numbers and therefore her candidature had been cancelled. She also sought permission to appear in the Special Intermediate Examination, 2017 to be held by the Board.
On 23 June 2017, CWJC No. 7717 of 2017 was disposed of. The Single Judge directed the Board to cancel any additional registration number that had been issued in her name and to allow her to appear in the compartmental Intermediate Examination, 2017.
The Bihar School Examination Board challenged this order in an intra-court appeal, LPA No. 955 of 2017. On 11 December 2017, a Division Bench modified the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench directed the Board to conduct an inquiry within one month, as earlier directed by the writ court. It further directed that, depending on the outcome of the inquiry, if the student was exonerated, her result in the compartmental examination would be declared. If not, the Board would be free to cancel her examination. The student was given liberty to challenge the outcome of the inquiry and any order issued by the Board.
Following this order, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Special Intermediate Examination, 2017. However, her result was not declared and her registration number and candidature were cancelled. This was done after an inquiry was conducted by the Board, which found her guilty of misconduct and led to an inquiry report dated 24 April 2018.
Aggrieved by the inquiry report and cancellation of her candidature, the petitioner filed a fresh writ petition, CWJC No. 21368 of 2019. She sought quashing of the order dated 24 April 2018 passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Controller of Examinations, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, by which her candidature was cancelled and her result withheld. On 19 December 2019, the learned Single Judge allowed this writ petition. It is this order that the Bihar School Examination Board challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No. 192 of 2020.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar (authoring the judgment), heard the appeal filed by the Bihar School Examination Board. The central question was whether the Board’s decision, based on its inquiry, to cancel the petitioner’s candidature and not declare her result was justified, and whether the Single Judge was right in interfering with that decision.
The Board’s inquiry was conducted pursuant to the liberty granted by the earlier Division Bench in LPA No. 955 of 2017. The inquiry focused on whether the petitioner had obtained two registrations from two different schools as a regular student for the 2015–17 session.
The inquiry committee examined records from two institutions. The committee found that the petitioner was admitted in Magadh Central Senior Secondary School, Nawada on 28 August 2015. Her name appeared at Serial No. 108 in the admission register of that school. She was later admitted in Senior Secondary School, Karpi, Arwal on 1 November 2015, where her name appeared at Serial No. 207 in that school’s admission register.
The committee noted that the petitioner had been registered twice as a regular candidate. She obtained Registration No. R-230810027/15 as a regular student of Magadh Central Senior Secondary School, Nawada. She also obtained Registration No. R-25008003815 as a regular student of Intermediate High School, Karpi, Arwal. Thus there were two separate registrations from two different schools for the same examination session.
The inquiry further recorded that the photograph of the petitioner did not match the photograph affixed on the admission and registration applications. However, in both schools, the Aadhaar card and matriculation marksheet showed the same names of her parents. On this basis, the committee concluded that it was indeed the same person who had been admitted and registered from both schools.
The committee observed that such practice appeared to be a deliberate malpractice. According to the findings, the petitioner and her parents had committed misconduct by getting her admitted as a regular student in two different schools and obtaining two registration numbers. The purpose was described as an “oblique motive for unlawful gain”, by enabling someone else to impersonate the petitioner in the examination to secure good results. On these findings, the Board decided to cancel her registration number and candidature and not to declare her result.
When the Single Judge considered CWJC No. 21368 of 2019, he accepted that the petitioner had two registration numbers from two different schools. However, he focused on her age. The Single Judge held that the petitioner was a minor at the time of her admission. According to him, the inquiry officer had not collected any material to prove that it was the petitioner herself, and not her parents or relatives, who had arranged the second illegal admission with the ulterior motive of fetching good marks through impersonation.
On that reasoning, the Single Judge concluded that any misdeed was likely that of the petitioner’s parents. He held that the child should not suffer for the misconduct of her parents. Therefore, he held that cancelling the petitioner’s candidature and withholding her result was not justified. He quashed the order dated 24 April 2018 of the Joint Secretary-cum-Controller of Examinations and directed the Board to publish her result within two months.
The Division Bench in the present LPA scrutinised this approach. The Bench first noted that it was not only the petitioner but 150 students whose registrations were cancelled because they had obtained registrations from two different schools. In her first writ petition, CWJC No. 7717 of 2017, the petitioner’s specific stand had been that she had only one registration number and was a regular student of only one school. On that limited plea, she had been allowed to appear in the examination, subject to the outcome of the Board’s inquiry.
The Division Bench noted that the Board’s inquiry had conclusively found that the petitioner did in fact have two registrations from two different schools. These findings were based on records maintained by both schools, including admission registers, applications and supporting documents like Aadhaar card and matriculation marksheet. There was no material on record to dislodge or doubt these findings.
The Court observed that, under the earlier LPA order, if the inquiry established that the petitioner had two registration numbers from two different schools, her candidature was liable to be cancelled. The scope of the litigation before the Single Judge was therefore confined to the question whether she had one registration number from one school or two registration numbers from two schools, as asserted by the Board.
The Division Bench held that once the inquiry, conducted pursuant to judicial directions, had returned a clear finding that she had two registrations, and that finding was based on proper evidence, there was no scope for the writ court to go beyond that limited question. The Single Judge had accepted that the petitioner had two registrations but then considered whether, being a minor, she personally could be held responsible or whether the misconduct might have been committed by her parents or relatives.
The Division Bench held that by entering into the question of the petitioner’s personal blameworthiness, the Single Judge had enlarged the scope of the writ beyond the original dispute. The issue was not who precisely orchestrated the malpractice but whether the petitioner, as a candidate, had two registrations from two different schools for the same session. Once that was proved, the Board was justified in cancelling her candidature in accordance with its rules and the prior court directions.
The Court emphasised that the inquiry committee’s report was a reasoned and speaking order. Its findings were based on proper appreciation of the materials collected from both schools and were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence. The Court found no indication that the committee had relied on extraneous, irrelevant or non-existent considerations.
In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that there was no ground for the writ court to interfere with the Board’s decision in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Judicial review does not permit re-appreciation of evidence like an appellate authority, especially when the administrative decision is based on cogent material and falls within the powers of the authority.
For these reasons, the Division Bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeal. It set aside the judgment and order dated 19 December 2019 passed by the Single Judge in CWJC No. 21368 of 2019. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for students, parents and schools in Bihar dealing with examinations conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. It shows that the Patna High Court will support strong action against exam malpractice when it is backed by proper inquiry and records.
The Court made it clear that if a candidate has two registrations from two different schools for the same session, the Board can cancel the candidature. It does not matter whether the candidate or the parents planned the malpractice. What matters is the fact of double registration and the risk of impersonation and unfair advantage.
The decision also limits how far a writ court can interfere with findings of an expert body like an examination board. When the Board conducts an inquiry as directed by the court, collects documents from schools and explains its reasoning, the High Court will be slow to disturb such decisions.
For other students, the message is that providing correct information and having only one valid registration is crucial. Any attempt to manipulate the system, even claiming that parents took the step, may not protect the student from strict consequences.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Could the writ court interfere with the Bihar School Examination Board’s decision cancelling a student’s candidature after an inquiry found that she had two registrations from two different schools for the same session?
Answer: No. The Division Bench held that the Board’s inquiry and findings were based on proper evidence, were neither perverse nor unsupported, and the Single Judge exceeded the scope of the lis by considering the student’s minority and possible parental misconduct. The Board’s cancellation of candidature was upheld.
Issue: Was the student entitled to declaration of her examination result despite the Board’s decision and inquiry findings?
Answer: No. Since the inquiry conclusively established double registration and the earlier LPA order permitted cancellation in such a case, the direction to publish her result was set aside and her writ petition was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to and relies upon the earlier Division Bench order in LPA No. 955 of 2017, which modified the Single Judge’s order in CWJC No. 7717 of 2017 and laid down how the Board’s inquiry and its consequences were to be handled.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 192 of 2020 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21368 of 2019; reference to earlier CWJC No. 7717 of 2017 and LPA No. 955 of 2017.
Case Title: Bihar School Examination Board Patna through its Secretary & Ors. v. Nagma Praveen & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice; Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 846.
Advocates: For the appellants (Bihar School Examination Board): Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG 10; Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Ujjawal Bhushan, Advocate.
Date of Judgment: 28-02-2022 (CAV judgment; CAV date 08-09-2021; uploading date 28-02-2022).
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal (intra-court appeal) against the order of a Single Judge allowing a writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction, arising out of cancellation of examination candidature and withholding of result by the Bihar School Examination Board.
Link to Judgment: Click here to view 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.
