POCSO Act | Foundational Facts Establishing Offence Must Be Proved To Trigger Statutory Presumption Under Section 29: Calcutta High Court Expectation Of Higher Price In Future Auctions No Ground To Discard Highest Bid Above Reserve Price; Subsequent Sale Hit By Section 52 TP Act: Allahabad High Court AI May Well Serve As Training Wheels But Entrusting It With Pilot's Seat Would Be Both Imprudent And Dangerous: Bombay High Court Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 138 NI Act Can Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution If Complainant Fails To Serve Notice On Accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Section 348 BNSS Witness Recall Plea Is Interlocutory; Inherent Powers Cannot Provide Backdoor Entry Where Section 438(2) Revisional Bar Applies Absent Gross Injustice: Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Appeal Commences From Date Assessee Receives Copy Of ITAT Order, Not Date Of Pronouncement: Bombay High Court Under Section 254(3) Income Tax Act Section 82 CrPC | Failure To Attempt Service At Known Overseas Address Vitiates Proclamation; Setting Aside PO Declaration Does Not Invalidate Arrest Warrants Or Extradition: Delhi High Court Expenditure Incurred By Defaulting Party Cannot Be Equated With Benefit Received Under Section 64 Contract Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 A&C Act Vendor Executing Agreement To Sell Pendente Lite Precluded From Compromising Appeal Prejudicially; Intending Purchasers Entitled To Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala Rent Act | Examination Of Co-Landlord Spouse Sufficient To Prove Bona Fide Need Even If Spouse Intending To Occupy Doesn't Testify: High Court Personal Accident Coverage Under Motor Insurance Policy Does Not Extend To Borrower; Exonerates Insurer From Liability: Madras High Court Limitation To Challenge Void Sale Deed Runs From Discovery Of Fraud, Unilateral Material Alteration Vitiates Title: Orissa High Court Interim Status Quo Order Automatically Lapses Upon Dismissal Of Suit, Pendency Of First Appeal Does Not Entitle Injunction Under Order 39 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act BSF Personnel Certified Medically Incapacitated Entitled To Disability Pension Despite 'Voluntary Retirement' Label Under Rule 48-A CCS Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Takes Title Free From Subsequent Attachments, Claim Enquiry Confined Only To Property Rights: Kerala High Court Commercial Use, Late-Night Events In Areas Adjacent To Reserved Forest Prohibited To Protect Wildlife Under Forest Conservation Norms: Rajasthan High Court In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed On Fabricated Sale Agreement Bearing Sequential Stamp Papers From Decade-Old Mortgage; Section 340 CrPC Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sole Testimony Of Child Victim Stands On Same Footing As Injured Witness, Defective Investigation No Ground To Discard Credible Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 6 POCSO Act, 376 IPC Once Trial Court Accepts Written Statement Without Objection, It Cannot Recall Order To Strike Off Defence Under Order 8 Rule 1: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Court Fee Refund Under Section 69 Or Section 69-A Of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act If Out-Of-Court Settlement Is Reached After Trial Commences: Madras High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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