Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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