Case Background

The petitioner was an aspirant for appointment as a School Teacher in Bihar under Advertisement No. 27/2023. She had applied for two categories of posts: School Teacher for Class VI–VIII (Middle School) and School Teacher for Class XI–XII (Higher Secondary School).

She appeared in the written examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (B.P.S.C.). In the exam for Middle School (Class VI–VIII), she obtained 62 marks, while the cut-off marks for her category were 77. In the Higher Secondary (Class XI–XII) exam, she obtained 45 marks, whereas the cut-off for her category was 65.

Despite failing to reach the cut-off in both categories, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court. She claimed that the authorities had changed an important condition of the recruitment process midway, relating to qualifying marks in the language paper, and that this had prejudiced her rights.

Through this writ petition, she asked the Court to direct the respondents to select and appoint her as a teacher in Middle School or Higher Secondary School against existing vacancies.

What the Court Examined and Decided

The core grievance of the petitioner was linked to the language paper (Part-I) of the examination. Under Advertisement No. 27/2023, there was a stipulation that candidates must secure 30% qualifying marks in the language paper, which could be English, Hindi, Urdu, or Bangla.

The petitioner argued that this requirement was later removed, allegedly to benefit some other candidates. She claimed that this amounted to changing the “rules of the game” midway through the selection process, which the law does not allow.

Her counsel submitted that she had devoted considerable time and effort to preparing for the language paper in order to secure the 30% qualifying marks. According to her, when the language qualifying requirement was later removed at the stage of preparing the merit list, it caused serious prejudice to her. She contended that the mandatory condition for passing in language had been struck off after the process had begun.

To support this argument, heavy reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi and analogous cases, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11. On the strength of that judgment, it was argued that once the selection process had commenced, the authority conducting it could not change the eligibility or qualifying rules by adding or removing conditions, as that would vitiate the entire selection.

On the other hand, the Bihar Public Service Commission, through its counsel, gave a detailed explanation of the examination structure, the marks obtained by the petitioner, and the cut-off marks.

For the Class VI–VIII examination (Hindi subject), the Commission published the result on 23.12.2023. It declared 3451 candidates successful. The petitioner got 62 marks and was placed at merit serial 25528. In the Backward Class (Female) category, the cut-off was 77 marks and the last selected candidate was at merit serial 7822. In the Backward Class (Ladies) category, the cut-off was 75 marks, with the last selected candidate at serial 9470.

For the Class XI–XII examination, the result was published on 26.12.2023, with 4225 candidates declared successful. In this category, the cut-off for Backward Class (Female) candidates was 65 marks, while the petitioner had secured only 45 marks. On that basis, she was disqualified.

The Commission also clarified the structure of the examination as per the advertisement dated 04.11.2023. The exam consisted of three parts: Part-I, Part-II, and Part-III. Part-I comprised 30 questions on languages and was only qualifying in nature. No merit was to be determined based on the marks obtained in Part-I, except in a tie situation, where Part-I marks would be used as a second tie-breaker after Part-III marks.

Therefore, by design, the marks in the language paper were not to be counted towards the total marks used for merit ranking. They were only for qualifying and for breaking ties in limited situations.

The Commission further referred to Clause 7(V) of the Bihar State School Teachers (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Action and Service Conditions) Rules, 2023 (the Rules, 2023). This clause gave the Commission discretion to fix qualifying marks for the examination. Additionally, Clause 6 of the Advertisement, under the heading “Selection Process”, also allowed the Commission to relax minimum qualifying cut-off marks as per necessity.

On the basis of reports received, it was found that the Part-I language questions for all examinations, except for the Primary School Teacher posts, were too difficult. They required deep understanding of grammar and literature and went far beyond what was needed for just “working knowledge” of the language. The difficulty level was therefore considered excessive and not aligned with the actual requirement of the job.

In light of this, on the advice of subject experts, a committee was formed to consider whether the qualifying cut-off marks for Part-I language questions should be relaxed. The committee examined all aspects. To ensure a “level playing field” for all candidates, it decided to qualify all candidates by reducing the qualifying cut-off marks in Part-I language questions to zero for all examinations other than the Primary School Teacher examination.

In other words, instead of requiring 30% qualifying marks in the language paper, the qualifying threshold was brought down to zero for most categories, so that no candidate would be disqualified only for failing to meet the previous language qualifying mark.

The Commission argued that this relaxation did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. On the contrary, it was beneficial to all candidates, including her, because it ensured that nobody would be rejected solely on the basis of the language paper. The real basis for merit remained the marks obtained in the main parts of the examination, particularly Part-III.

The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the admitted position regarding marks and cut-offs. The Court noted that the petitioner had scored much fewer marks than the cut-off in the Backward Class (Female) category for both Class VI–VIII and Class XI–XII.

The Court also noted that the relaxation of qualifying marks in the language paper had been extended to all candidates who participated in the examination (other than those for Primary Teacher posts), on the advice of subject experts. This was done with the explicit objective of providing a level playing field for everyone.

On these facts, the Court concluded that by removing the qualifying marks condition and setting it at zero, no prejudice was caused to any candidate, including the petitioner. The 30 marks of Part-I were only meant for qualifying and were not to be added to the total marks used for preparing the merit list. Therefore, changing the qualifying requirement in Part-I did not affect the calculation of merit or alter the petitioner’s position in the list.

The Court accepted that, technically, by striking off the qualifying mark, a change was brought into the process. However, this change was made under the authority of Clause 7(V) of the Rules, 2023 read with Clause 6 of the Advertisement, which expressly empowered the Commission to relax minimum qualifying marks.

In light of these specific enabling provisions, the Court held that the Supreme Court decision in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi did not apply to the present case. That precedent dealt with situations where authorities, without lawful authority, changed qualifying standards after the process began. Here, the Commission had clear statutory and advertised discretion to relax qualifying marks, and it exercised that discretion uniformly for all candidates.

Since the petitioner had not reached the required cut-off marks in the relevant categories even after this relaxation, the Court found no legal right in her claim for selection and appointment. There was no illegality in the action of the Commission or the State that could justify judicial interference.

Accordingly, the Patna High Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for teacher recruitment and other competitive examinations in Bihar. The Patna High Court has recognised that the Bihar Public Service Commission can relax qualifying marks in an examination, when such power is clearly provided in the rules and advertisement, and when the relaxation is applied uniformly.

For candidates, this means that not every change in exam conditions will be treated as “changing rules in the middle of the game.” The key questions will be whether the authority had power to make the change and whether it was done for all candidates equally, without favouring any particular group.

The judgment also underlines a practical point: even if some part of the exam pattern is changed, a candidate must still meet the final cut-off marks to claim appointment. Courts are unlikely to order appointment where the candidate’s marks are far below the cut-off, unless there is clear illegality or discrimination.

Legal Issues and Answers

• Issue: Whether the Bihar Public Service Commission illegally changed the qualifying condition for the language paper by removing the 30% qualifying mark after the selection process had started, thereby vitiating the recruitment.
  Answer: No. The Court held that the Commission acted within its powers under Clause 7(V) of the Rules, 2023 and Clause 6 of the Advertisement to relax minimum qualifying marks, and this relaxation was applied uniformly to all candidates, causing no prejudice to the petitioner.
• Issue: Whether the petitioner, who had scored below the prescribed cut-off marks in both categories, could claim a right to selection and appointment based on the alleged change in qualifying marks.
  Answer: No. The Court found that the petitioner’s marks were substantially below the cut-off in her category for both Class VI–VIII and Class XI–XII, and therefore she had no enforceable right to appointment.
• Issue: Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi applied to this case and rendered the selection process invalid.
  Answer: No. The Court held that Hemani Malhotra did not apply because here the relaxation of qualifying marks was expressly authorised by the governing Rules and the Advertisement, and was exercised to ensure a level playing field for all candidates.

Cases Cited by the Court

• Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi and analogous cases, (2008) 7 SCC 11 (relied upon by the petitioner, but held not applicable to the present facts).

Case Details

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10190 of 2024

Case Title: Anju Kumari @ Anju Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 116

Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar

Date of Judgment: 01-09-2025

Advocates:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondents (State of Bihar/Education Department): Mr. Abbas Haider, SC-6

For the Bihar Public Service Commission: Mr. Zaki Haider, Advocate

Respondents: State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department; Principal Secretary, Education Department; Director, Education Department; Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission

Nature of the Case: Writ petition (Civil) challenging aspects of a teacher recruitment process and seeking direction for selection and appointment.

Link to Judgment: Click here to view the full judgment on the Patna High Court website

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.