Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

Bihar High Court Condemns Board’s Irresponsible Conduct, Awards Compensation for Erroneous Examination Result”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Bihar High Court came down heavily on the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) for its irresponsible conduct in publishing an erroneous Secondary School Examination result, causing significant adverse effects on the petitioner’s life. The Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, expressed its concern over the inordinate delay in responding to the scrutiny request and awarded compensation to petitioner no. 2 for the mental agony and loss of study time she endured.

The case, bearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7185 of 2019, involved Manoj Kumar and Kanchan Kumari as the petitioners and the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Education Department, the Director Primary Education, the Secretary of Bihar School Examination Board, the Registrar of Bihar School Examination Board, and the Headmaster of BLSSP High School Narkatiya as the respondents.

Petitioner no. 2, a student of BLSSP High School, Narkatiya, was shocked when her result was published, indicating that she had failed in the compulsory paper of Sanskrit. However, after an application under the Right to Information Act, it was discovered that she had, in fact, obtained ‘77’ marks in Sanskrit. The delay in providing the correct information, which took over a year and a half, caused petitioner no. 2 to lose two academic years and suffer immense mental agony and humiliation.

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, in his oral judgment on 19th July 2023, expressed his dismay over the irresponsible conduct of the Board and its officials, which marred the petitioner’s career and future prospects. He further cited a similar judgment from a Co-ordinate Bench, wherein compensation was awarded in a comparable circumstance, to support the decision to award compensation in this case.

The Court directed the Board to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to petitioner no. 2 as compensation, along with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost. Additionally, the Board was given liberty to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility upon the erring officials. The Court granted the Board the authority to recover the compensation amount from those officials found at fault.

This judgment serves as a stern warning to educational boards and authorities to be diligent in their responsibilities and highlights the importance of accountability in the education system. The Court’s decision to award compensation aims to provide some redressal to petitioner no. 2 for the hardships she endured due to the irresponsible conduct of the Board and its officials.

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad stated, “The action of the Board and its officials in recording an incorrect/wrong marks in the result of the petitioner and showing her ‘Fail’ is a totally irresponsible kind of act which has a huge adverse consequence upon the career and future prospect of petitioner no. 2.”

The Court's decision In this case, as in CWJC No. 6173 of 2018, highlights the significance of ensuring accuracy and promptness in handling examination results, which directly impact the lives and futures of students.

Date of Decision: 19th July 2023

Manoj Kumar vs The State of Bihar

Latest Legal News