Case Background
This case arose from Advertisement No.26/2023 issued by the Education Department, Government of Bihar, for recruitment of School Teachers in Primary Schools (Class 1–5). The advertisement clearly allowed even those candidates who were still “appearing” in their training course to apply.
The petitioner, a Backward Class category candidate, was pursuing the Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) course for the session 2021–2023 at Jajba Teachers Training College, Khizersarai, Gaya. Relying on the advertisement, she applied for the post of Primary School Teacher as an appearing D.El.Ed candidate.
She received her admit card, appeared in the School Teachers Recruitment Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC), and was declared successful. Based on that success, the District Education Officer, Munger issued a counselling-cum-orientation letter to her.
The petitioner participated in counselling, and a provisional appointment letter was issued to her. She was then sent for training to the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Banka. After successfully completing that 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 before the Headmaster of the allotted school, the Headmaster refused to accept her joining. The problem had arisen because, in the result of her D.El.Ed 2nd year examination, she was shown as not having any practical/internal marks in any subject and was therefore treated as failed.
The petitioner approached the District Education Officer, Munger and other concerned authorities. She explained that due to a mistake by her Teachers Training College, she had been shown absent in all practical examinations, although she had actually appeared and been awarded marks.
For rectification, she filed an application before the college. The college acknowledged the mistake and referred the matter to the Bihar School Examination Board (the Board), requesting correction of her practical marks in the Standard Marks Foil so that her D.El.Ed result could be properly updated. Despite this, the Board did not grant the request.
Left with no effective remedy, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She sought directions to the Board to issue her corrected mark-sheet and certificate for D.El.Ed 2nd year (session 2021–2023), and directions to the State authorities, including the District Education Officer, Munger and the Headmaster of Middle School, SC Tola, Gaura, to accept her joining as a teacher.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Court began by stating an important principle: when an inadvertent omission or mistake is brought to the notice of the Court, it is the Court’s duty to ensure that no person suffers because of such a mistake. The Court held that this principle applies to all, including the State and its functionaries.
A counter affidavit was filed by the Bihar School Examination Board. Through its Senior Advocate, the Board explained that the petitioner had appeared as an “appearing candidate” of D.El.Ed (session 2021–2023) in the School Teachers Recruitment Examination and was declared successful. However, her joining as a teacher could not be accepted because she was shown as failed in the D.El.Ed exams.
According to the Board, the petitioner had appeared in the D.El.Ed 2nd year exam in 2023 under Roll Code 81804 and Roll No. 211023 from Jajba Teachers Training College, Khizersarai, Gaya. The Board claimed she did not appear in the internal subject examinations of S-1 to S-9 and Sep 02 (External) and Sep 02 (Internal). Therefore, she was declared failed.
After the result was declared, the Principal of Jajba Teachers Training College wrote letter no.105 dated 20.10.2023 to the Board. The college stated that the petitioner had actually appeared in the practical examination of all subject papers, but her marks were not mentioned in the Standard Marks Foil at the relevant time due to an error. The college requested correction.
The Board clarified that theory examinations are conducted by the Board, but internal/practical examinations are conducted at the level of the college or institution, and those marks are then supplied to the Board through the Standard Marks Foil for publication of results.
When several such claims for correction came from different colleges, the Board constituted a Five Members Committee to examine all such cases. The petitioner’s case was also placed before this committee.
The Committee examined the Standard Marks Foil sent by the petitioner’s college. It found that for Roll No. 211023, the relevant columns had been left blank in all subjects, and there were signs of use of an eraser. On this basis, the Committee concluded that it did not appear to be a simple human error and suspected that, after publication of the result, a request was being made for marks extension for ulterior reasons by misleading the Board. The Committee termed the act of the college “fraudulent”.
The Board accepted the Committee’s report dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure-R/B series) and rejected the request for correction of the petitioner’s D.El.Ed result. By letter dated 27.12.2023, the Board communicated this decision and recommended action against the erring Heads/Principals of the concerned colleges.
The petitioner challenged both the decision of the Committee and the consequential Board letter dated 27.12.2023 through an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025) in this writ case.
To verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim and that of the Teachers Training College, the Court directed respondent no.6 (the college) to file a counter affidavit and produce the original marks register of D.El.Ed candidates of the relevant session.
The counsel for the college submitted that the petitioner had been present in all internal examinations, but due to inadvertence at college level she was wrongly shown as absent in the Standard Marks Foil. Once the error was noticed, the college immediately informed the Board through the letter dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-P/5).
The college also stated that, on 10.11.2023, the Board had asked it to produce the marks register and its certified copy for proper consideration. In compliance, the college produced the original marks register and certified copies, which allegedly showed that the petitioner was present on all scheduled dates and her marks were duly recorded.
Despite this, the Five Members Committee concluded that there was use of eraser and possible manipulation at the college level and treated the act as fraudulent. The college complained that it was never given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and that no notice was given before such serious adverse findings were made against it.
The Court then took the important step of calling for and examining the original D.El.Ed marks register itself, in order to bring quietus to the litigation.
After a careful perusal of the register, the Court found that it contained internal/practical marks of D.El.Ed candidates from the 2016 session onwards up to 1st year 2024–2026. The petitioner, with Roll No. 21103 (as recorded in the judgment, for session 2021–2023), was shown as present in all internal/practical examinations for subjects S-1 to S-9, Sep 02 (External) and Sep 02 (Internal), as conducted at college level.
Just below the petitioner’s name, another candidate, Smita Kumari, D/o Bhupendra Yadav, also of D.El.Ed session 2021–2023, was shown as absent in the original marks register produced before the Court. From this, the Court observed that there was every chance that a mistake could have been inadvertently committed while filling up the Standard Marks Foil that was sent to the Board.
The Court also perused the attendance sheet of the internal examination 2023 of D.El.Ed. It showed that the petitioner was present, while some other candidates such as Shabnam Khatoon, Nasreen Perween and Amit Kumar were shown absent. This matched the entries in the original marks register for 2nd year (2023), further confirming that the college record was consistent and that the petitioner had indeed appeared.
The Court took note that as soon as the petitioner became aware of her D.El.Ed result, she immediately approached the college, and the college promptly accepted the mistake and wrote to the Board on 20.10.2023, the same day. The Board acknowledged receipt on that day itself, and later received the original marks register and supporting documents on 17.11.2023.
Despite these materials, the Committee concluded that there was eraser use and manipulation, but the judgment records that there was “no whisper” in the report as to why the certified copy of the marks register produced by the college had not been accepted, or why the original register was not relied upon. There was no finding that the original register was tampered, overwritten, or fabricated.
The Court found that only because the petitioner was shown as absent in the Standard Marks Foil, the Committee had treated it as not a human error. The Court held that this reasoning did not stand to reason. The Committee ought not to have ignored the original marks register unless there was proof of overwriting or manipulation, which was absent.
The Court also recorded that there was no allegation that the petitioner, in collusion with the college, had manipulated marks, nor any such finding in the Committee’s verification. It stressed that the petitioner’s career could not be jeopardised due to an inadvertent mistake committed by the Teachers Training College.
Applying the principle that a person should not suffer for an inadvertent error, and based on the original record and attendance sheet, the Court found substance in the petitioner’s claim.
Consequently, the Court directed the Bihar School Examination Board to make necessary corrections in the mark-sheet and certificate of the petitioner’s D.El.Ed as per the original marks register of the Teachers Training College. This was to be done preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order, and the corrected documents were to be handed over to the petitioner.
The Court further directed that the petitioner should provide these corrected documents along with the Court’s order to the District Education Officer, Munger. On receipt, the District Education Officer, Munger must direct the Headmaster of the concerned school to accept the petitioner’s joining, based on the final result under Advertisement No.26/2023 and the provisional appointment letter, 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 orders and directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is significant for teacher recruitment and for all students whose careers depend on correct examination records. It shows that a candidate should not lose a job opportunity because of a college’s clerical error in internal marks.
The Court treated the original marks register and attendance sheet as reliable evidence of the petitioner’s participation and performance, rather than blindly trusting only the Standard Marks Foil that contained the mistake. This approach protects genuine students from suffering lifelong damage due to administrative lapses.
It also sends a message to boards and authorities that when colleges promptly admit their mistakes and provide supporting records, those records must be fairly examined. Committees cannot simply label actions as “fraudulent” without confronting and answering the contents of the original documents.
For candidates selected under Advertisement No.26/2023 and similar recruitments, this judgment clarifies that if they have cleared the recruitment examination and only an internal mark-recording error stands in the way, they can seek corrective relief. The Court has clearly held that state bodies and boards also bear responsibility to correct such mistakes.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a teacher candidate be denied joining and treated as failed in D.El.Ed solely because the college failed to enter her internal/practical marks in the Standard Marks Foil, even when the original marks register and attendance sheet show she appeared and was awarded marks?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the candidate cannot be made to suffer for the college’s inadvertent mistake. Based on the original marks register and attendance, the Board must correct the D.El.Ed mark-sheet and certificate, and the authorities must accept her joining. -
Issue: Was the Five Members Committee of the Bihar School Examination Board justified in rejecting the correction request by terming the college’s action fraudulent, without considering the original marks register and certified copies?
Answer: The Court found the Committee’s approach unsustainable. It noted that there was no evidence of overwriting or manipulation in the original register, no proper reasoning for ignoring it, and no finding of collusion by the petitioner. The Committee’s conclusion could not stand in law.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judgments are cited or expressly relied upon in the text of this decision.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1036 of 2024
Case Title: Sima Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
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 (service and examination-related relief in teacher recruitment and D.El.Ed result correction).
Link to Judgment: Official Patna High Court judgment link
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.
