Patna High Court
Amod Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 February, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3898 of 2018
======================================================
Amod Kumar Singh S/o Sri Satyanarayan Singh Resident of Village- Tilai,
P.O. Andhara Thadhi, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The State Appellate Authority, Education Department, 5 C.D. Niyojan
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar,Patna.
6. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board , Bihar, Patna.
7. Sima Kumari W/o Harishankar Singh Resident of Village P.O. P.S.
Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rana Bhupendra Narayan Singh,
Ms. Babita Kumari, Advocate
For B.S.Ex. Board : Mr. Satyavir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gyan Shanker, Advocate
For respondent No.7 : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Sandhya Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP-27
Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, A.C. to G.P.-27
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 12-02-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ application has been preferred
seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction for
quashing the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Chairperson of
the State Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 162/2017, whereby
the appellate authority held that the marksheet submitted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
2/47
writ petitioner pertaining to the Intermediate Examination, issued
by the then Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, in the
year 1994, was forged and fabricated. Consequent thereto, the
appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by the private
respondent by setting aside the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by
the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority in Case No.
827/2008-2011
and further directed respondent no. 6, the Block
Development Officer, Rajnagar, and respondent no. 7, the Block
Education Officer, Rajnagar, to cancel the employment of the writ
petitioner as Block Teacher and to consider appointing the private
respondent in his place within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of the order (Annexure-8). The petitioner has also
prayed for a declaration that the certificate/marksheet issued in his
favour by the then Intermediate Council, which continues to
remain in existence as of date, is an authentic and valid document
and for holding that the appointment of the petitioner, having been
made by the Prakhand Niyojan Unit, Rajnagar, is lawful and valid
in the eye of law.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner interalia submits
that pursuant to an advertisement issued under the Bihar Panchayat
Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules,
2006, as amended up to date, the petitioner applied as a general
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
3/47
candidate under the disability quota. On the basis of having
secured 558 marks in the Intermediate Examination, he was placed
at Serial No. 1 in the merit list and was accordingly appointed as
Block Teacher vide appointment letter dated 28.12.2010
(Annexure-1).
It is further submitted that in compliance with the
aforesaid appointment, the petitioner joined his duties on
30.12.2010 as Block Teacher at Upgraded Middle School, Barhara,
Block Rajnagar, District-Madhubani (Annexure-2). Since the date
of his joining, the petitioner has been discharging his duties
uninterruptedly and has been receiving salary admissible to the
said post without any complaint regarding his performance or
eligibility.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute arose
subsequently when the private respondent challenged the
appointment of the petitioner before the District Appellate
Authority, contending that she had secured higher marks than the
petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had, in fact, obtained
only 554 marks in the Intermediate Examination, whereas his
appointment was made on the basis of 558 marks. In support of
such contention, the private respondent relied upon a letter issued
by the Bihar School Examination Board under the Right to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
4/47
Information Act indicating that the petitioner had secured 554
marks in the Intermediate Examination held in 1994. The said
allegation was vehemently opposed by the petitioner through a
written statement before the District Appellate Authority, wherein
he asserted that he had secured a total of 558 marks, inclusive of
four grace marks awarded under the applicable regulations. In
support of his claim, the petitioner produced a copy of the mark-
sheet issued by the then Intermediate Council reflecting 558
marks, as well as a copy of the relevant portion of the tabulation
register supplied by the concerned college, which also
corroborated his claim (Annexures-3 and 4). It is further submitted
that the petitioner specifically contended that the information
obtained under the RTI Act did not account for the four grace
marks awarded to him under the regulations, thereby leading to an
incorrect depiction of his total marks.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the District Appellate Authority called upon the Niyojan Unit
to clarify the position. In response, the Secretary of the concerned
Niyojan Unit appeared and produced Letter No. 227 dated
19.08.2011 issued under the signature of the Block Development
Officer, Rajnagar, addressed to the Member of the District
Appellate Authority, Madhubani, stating that the marks obtained
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
5/47
by the petitioner had been verified by the Board and were found to
be true. It was further indicated that any further verification, if
required, could be undertaken at the level of the District Appellate
Authority (Annexure-5). After considering the materials available
on record, the District Appellate Authority came to the conclusion
that the claim raised by the private respondent was baseless and
accordingly dismissed the appeal vide order dated 04.11.2011
passed in Appeal No. 827/08/11 (Annexure-6).
Being aggrieved thereby, the private respondent initially
preferred CWJC No. 23080 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court,
which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the
State Appellate Authority within thirty days vide order dated
24.07.2017 (Annexure-7). Thereafter, the private respondent filed
Appeal No. 162/2017 before the State Appellate Authority. Notices
were issued to all concerned parties, including the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed a detailed counter
affidavit reiterating that he had secured 558 marks and enclosing
the marksheet issued by the Intermediate Council. It was again
clarified that four marks had been awarded as grace under the
regulations and that the tabulation register available with the
concerned college also reflected the same total.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
6/47
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Bihar School Examination Board filed an
affidavit before the State Appellate Authority stating that, upon
verification from the Reserve Tabulation Register and the CD
available with the Board, the petitioner was found to have secured
554 marks, whereas the private respondent no.7 had secured 555
marks. The Board further alleged before the State Appellate
Authority that the marksheet showing 558 marks was false and
fabricated.
Learned counsel, however, submits that an affidavit was
also filed by the Block Education Officer, Rajnagar, categorically
stating that the petitioner had been appointed on the basis of
securing 558 marks out of 900 in the Intermediate Examination
and that such marks had been verified from the records made
available by the Board. It was further stated that the marksheet was
neither forged nor fabricated and that the private respondent had
been placed at Serial No. 3 in the merit list, thereby negating any
claim to appointment. It is contended that the State Appellate
Authority, relying primarily upon the affidavit of the Board came
to the conclusion that the marksheet was forged and fabricated and
also presumed that the petitioner had secured only 554 marks and
consequently allowed the appeal, directing the appointment of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
7/47
private respondent in place of the petitioner by setting aside the
petitioner’s appointment vide order dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure-
8).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
State Appellate Authority failed to take into consideration that the
marksheet issued by the then Intermediate Council is a genuine
document reflecting 558 marks and continues to remain valid,
having never been cancelled by any competent authority. It is
further submitted that the tabulation register supplied to the
concerned college also supports the petitioner’s claim. It is argued
that the appellate authority erred in disbelieving the marksheet
without conducting any proper enquiry. There is no specific
finding from the Board indicating that the signatures appearing on
the marksheet were forged or that the series or serial number
mentioned therein had never been issued by the Intermediate
Council.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
neither a proper enquiry was conducted regarding the genuineness
of the marksheet nor was any adequate opportunity afforded to the
petitioner to clarify his position, thereby violating the principles of
natural justice. It is emphasized that the petitioner had passed the
Intermediate Examination in 1994 and the marksheet was issued in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
8/47
the same year. After a lapse of nearly twenty-four years, the Board
raised doubts regarding the genuineness of the marksheet, which,
according to the petitioner, was/is impermissible in law. It is also
contended that such a serious issue affecting the livelihood and
service career of the petitioner ought not to have been handled in
such a casual manner. Before taking any action adversely affecting
the petitioner’s rights, a full-fledged opportunity of personal
hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner, which was
not done.
Learned counsel further submits that no decision of the
Board has ever been brought on record to demonstrate that the
marksheet issued to the petitioner was formally cancelled by a
competent authority. Therefore, so long as the marksheet issued in
favour of the petitioner by the then Intermediate Council remains
in existence, any action taken contrary thereto is unsustainable in
the eye of law. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the State
Appellate Authority is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside
by this court.
9. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6
(B.S.E.B.) by way of counter affidavit filed in compliance with the
order dated 09.03.2018 passed by this Court submits that during
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
9/47
the examination of the petitioner’s records while filing the counter
affidavit before the State Appellate Authority, it came to light that
an inadvertent mistake had been committed by the erstwhile Bihar
Intermediate Education Council while sending the cross list to the
concerned college, wherein the aggregate marks of the petitioner
were incorrectly reflected as 558.
10. Learned counsel submits that as per the official
records of the Board, namely the General Tabulation Register
(GTR) and the Reserve Tabulation Register (RTR), the subject-
wise marks secured by the petitioner are as follows: NRB/MA – 60
marks; MAI – 143 marks; Political Science – 110 marks;
Sociology – 119 marks; and Psychology – 122 marks, making a
total aggregate of 554 marks out of 900 marks, thereby placing the
petitioner in the First Division. It is thus asserted that a correct
addition of the subject-wise marks unmistakably leads to a total of
554 and not 558 marks.
11. With respect to the petitioner’s claim regarding the
grant of grace marks, learned counsel submits that grace marks are
awarded only under two circumstances: firstly, where an examinee
has failed in one or two subjects (subject to a maximum of two),
and secondly, for the limited purpose of improving the division of
an examinee. In the present case, the petitioner neither failed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
10/47
any subject nor required any improvement of division, as he had
already passed the examination in First Division by securing 554
marks. Consequently, there was no occasion for the erstwhile
Council to award any grace marks to the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner did not fall within either of the
categories eligible for grant of grace marks and, in fact, no grace
marks were ever awarded to him. The question as to whether grace
marks ought to be added to the grand total is stated to be purely
academic in the present context, as the petitioner was never
granted such marks.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent B.S.E.B. further
submits that insofar as the issuance of the marksheet by the
erstwhile Council is concerned, the same appears to be partially
incorrect. While the individual marks recorded against each
subject are stated to be correct, the aggregate was erroneously
entered as 558 due to inadvertence, whereas the actual total is 554
upon proper calculation. It is further contended that the marksheet
relied upon by the petitioner bears the remark “U.R.” (Under
Regulation), which is ordinarily applicable only in cases where a
candidate has failed in one or two subjects or where the regulation
is invoked for improvement of division. Since the petitioner had
passed all subjects independently and had secured his division
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
11/47
without any concession, the application of “U.R.” in his case was
wholly unwarranted. It is also submitted that the stand taken by the
Board in the present counter affidavit is consistent with the
position earlier adopted before the State Appellate Authority in
Appeal Case No. 162/2017.
13. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 7 submits
that although the petitioner has attempted to justify his marksheet
and the marks allegedly obtained by him in the Intermediate
Examination, a scrutiny of the relevant materials clearly
establishes that the petitioner was neither entitled to any grace
marks nor can the marksheet relied upon by him be treated as
genuine. The petitioner relied upon a marksheet showing 558
marks out of 900, a simple arithmetical calculation of the subject-
wise marks reveals that the aggregate comes to only 554 marks.
The plea of the petitioner that four grace marks were awarded to
him is stated to be wholly untenable, as the marksheet does not
disclose that he had failed in any subject or that he required
additional marks for securing First Division. It is further contended
that the petitioner has neither asserted that grace marks were
granted uniformly to all candidates nor has he referred to any
statutory provision under which he could claim such benefit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
12/47
Accordingly, the claim regarding grace marks is described as
unbelievable and contrary to established norms.
14. Learned counsel for private respondent further
submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the
marksheet and the extract of the tabulation register is misplaced,
inasmuch as the official tabulation register maintained by the Bihar
School Examination Board reflects that the petitioner secured only
554 marks. In this regard, reference is made to the replies
furnished by the Public Information Officer of the Board under the
Right to Information Act vide letters dated 07.04.2011,
06.05.2011, and 09.01.2012, all consistently indicating that the
petitioner passed in First Division with 554 marks. Copies of the
said letters have been annexed as Annexure-A series, and the
counter affidavit of the Board filed before the State Appellate
Authority has been annexed as Annexure-B.
It is further submitted that the marksheet produced by
the petitioner appears forged and fabricated for the additional
reason that, under the applicable regulations, whenever grace
marks are awarded, a star mark is embossed against the relevant
subject and the notation “U/R” is typed with a slash between the
letters. The petitioner’s marksheet lacks both the star mark and the
slash, thereby casting serious doubt on its authenticity. By way of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
13/47
illustration, marksheets of other candidates who were granted
grace marks–namely Vikas Kumar Singh and Sangita Kumari–
have been annexed as Annexure-C series to demonstrate the
standard format.
15. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s
reliance upon Letter No. 227 dated 19.08.2011 issued by the Block
Education Officer is equally misconceived, as the said letter
neither refers to any communication from the Bihar School
Examination Board nor encloses any verification report. The
absence of such details raises serious doubts regarding the veracity
of the alleged verification and renders the statement of the Block
Education Officer unreliable, particularly in light of the categorical
stand taken by the Board.
It is next contended that the plea of violation of
principles of natural justice is wholly unfounded. The petitioner
was duly served with notice pursuant to order dated 01.05.2012
passed in CWJC No. 23080 of 2011 and was again issued notice
by the State Appellate Authority. The petitioner appeared in the
proceedings and filed his reply, and a copy of the counter affidavit
of the Board was also served upon his counsel. Despite being
granted sufficient time and several adjournments, the petitioner
chose not to file any rejoinder. A copy of the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
14/47
01.05.2012 has been annexed as Annexure-D. In such
circumstances, it is submitted that there was neither denial of
opportunity nor any breach of natural justice.
16. Learned counsel for the private respondent further
submits that the petitioner’s contention that the marksheet was
never formally cancelled is of no consequence, as the factual
position regarding the marks has already been clarified from the
original records of the Board. It is argued that once it is established
that the petitioner secured 554 marks, whereas respondent no. 7
secured 555 marks, the latter, having higher merit, is entitled to
appointment in accordance with the settled principle that selection
must follow merit. It is also submitted that the Bihar School
Examination Board is an autonomous body with no personal
interest in the dispute and has merely placed the factual records
before the authorities. The State Appellate Authority, upon
consideration of the marks obtained by the respective candidates
and the materials on record, rightly directed cancellation of the
petitioner’s appointment and to consider appointment of
respondent no. 7 in his place, and the said order suffers from no
illegality.
Learned counsel adds that the question of alleged
forgery is a separate matter within the discretion of the competent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
15/47
department, which may take appropriate action, including lodging
of an FIR, if so advised.
17. It is further contended that the State Appellate
Authority conducted due consideration of the materials on record
and granted adequate opportunities to the petitioner to substantiate
his claim. The authority passed the impugned order only after
evaluating the counter affidavits and the documentary evidence;
therefore, the allegation that no proper enquiry was conducted is
unsustainable. Also respondent no. 7 is a handicapped woman
belonging to the backward community who secured 555 marks in
the Intermediate Examination and passed in First Division. In
comparison, the petitioner secured only 554 marks. Consequently,
respondent no. 7, being higher in merit, rightfully deserves
selection. It is thus submitted that the writ petition is devoid of
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply further
submits that while reliance has been placed upon the General
Tabulation Register (GTR) and Reserve Tabulation Register
(RTR), the relevant extracts thereof have not been annexed. On the
contrary, the tabulation register brought on record by the petitioner
reflects a total of 558 marks. It is additionally pointed out that
similar discrepancies appear in respect of other candidates,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
16/47
including Shiv Kumar Jha and Archana Kumari, whose aggregates
exceed the subject-wise totals, thereby indicating that the
petitioner’s case is not an isolated one. In support thereof, the
petitioner has also produced the College Leaving Certificate issued
by Visheshwar Singh Janta College, Rajnagar, certifying that he
passed the Intermediate Examination in First Division under
regulation, which has been marked as Annexure-9.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
legitimately relied upon the marksheet issued by the competent
authority, bearing the official seal and signature, and acted upon
the same while applying for the post of Block Teacher. His
appointment was made after due verification by the concerned
authorities, and he has continued in service to their satisfaction. It
is thus urged that the petitioner had no reason to doubt the
genuineness of the marksheet nor had any role in its issuance. It is
further argued that the Board itself has admitted that the marksheet
was issued by the erstwhile Intermediate Council and that the
subject-wise marks mentioned therein are correct. In such
circumstances, the responsibility to ensure accuracy lay solely
with the issuing authority and not with the petitioner.
19. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and
6 (B.S.E.B.) by way of another counter affidavit submits that upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
17/47
becoming aware of the concerns expressed by the Court, the
Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, initiated an enquiry
into the matter and constituted a three-member committee
comprising the Chief Vigilance Officer, the Examination
Controller (Senior Secondary), and the Additional Secretary to
examine the issues involved and furnish an appropriate response. It
is further submitted that the committee, upon scrutiny of the
relevant records, found that the earlier counter affidavit had been
prepared with reference to a connected file bearing
BSEB(SS)/912/LS/2011, arising out of a prior writ petition filed
by one Sima Kumari, wherein the present petitioner had been
arrayed as a respondent. The notings contained in the said file,
duly approved up to the level of the Deputy Secretary, were based
on entries available in the G.T.R., R.T.R., and the Tabulation
Register Compact Disc (TRCD) for the years 1993 and 1994.
With regard to the availability of the G.T.R., it is stated
that a fire broke out on 16.01.2015 in the Academic Building of
the Board, resulting in the destruction of records, including the
G.T.R. for the period 1983 to 1995 pertaining to certain divisions.
The incident was reported to the local police and was also the
subject of an internal enquiry, which confirmed the loss of the
records. As to the authenticity of the R.T.R. of 1994, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
18/47
committee observed that although it did not bear the signature of
the tabulator, the register had been jointly certified by responsible
officials of the Board. It is further stated that the entries relating to
the petitioner were cross-verified with the TRCD maintained by
the Board since 1983, and the particulars were found to be
consistent. On such examination, the committee opined that the
available R.T.R. of 1994 could be safely relied upon. The report of
the committee dated 29.08.2019 has been brought on record as
Annexure-A.
20. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 (B.S.E.B.), by
way of an interlocutory application, submits that paragraph-13 of
the counter affidavit requires correction and ought to be substituted
to clarify that the marksheet of the petitioner reflecting an
aggregate of 558 marks with First Division under U/R is false and
fabricated. It is contended that a conjoint reading of the counter
affidavit reveals that the existing averment in paragraph-13 is not
in consonance with the remaining pleadings. It is further submitted
that the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Board before the
State Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No. 162/2017, appended
as Annexure-A, also supports the stand that the marksheet
indicating 558 marks is false and fabricated. Accordingly, prayer
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
19/47
has been made for permitting necessary correction/amendment in
paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner, opposing the
interlocutory application filed by respondent no. 6, submits that
the prayer for amendment of paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit
is not tenable in law and is liable to be rejected. It is further
submitted that the merit list was never challenged nor set aside and
the petitioner continues to hold the first position. Learned counsel
argues that a necessary party, namely Jagannath Prasad, who
allegedly secured second position in the merit list, was not
impleaded before the State Appellate Authority. It is also urged
that the State Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to issue
directions relating to appointment.
Learned counsel highlights that in earlier proceedings
this Court had directed the Board to verify the authenticity of the
petitioner’s marksheet, yet the Board remained inactive for several
years despite being aware of the petitioner’s employment, and only
later raised allegations before the Appellate Authority. It is argued
that a statutory body like the Board cannot be permitted to shift or
improve its stand before different forums.
Learned counsel also contends that this Court had earlier
expressed serious doubts regarding the Reserve Tabulation
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
20/47
Register and had raised specific queries which, according to the
petitioner, remain inadequately answered. It is urged that the
Board’s earlier counter affidavits indicate that the discrepancy in
aggregate marks was due to inadvertent error and that steps were
being taken for correction, and such judicial admissions are
binding upon the Board.
ISSUES IN QUESTION:
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, after the factual and legal positions of the parties had already
crystallized on the basis of the affidavits on record, respondent
nos. 5 and 6 (Bihar School Examination Board) can be permitted
to approbate and reprobate their own pleadings by seeking
amendment through the interlocutory application I.A. No. 01/26 at
the fag end of the proceedings?
2. Whether the declaration of the petitioner’s marksheet
as “forged and fabricated” by the State Appellatte Teachers
Auuthority is sustainable in law in the absence of a duly conducted
inquiry, cogent documentary evidence, and compliance with the
principles of natural justice?
3. Whether an admitted or established
clerical/administrative error in the recording of marks, if detected
subsequently, can be permitted to subsist merely on account of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
21/47lapse of time, particularly when continuance of such error results
in conferring an undue advantage upon one candidate at the
expense of another who may be lawfully entitled to such benefit?
4. Whether the challenge to the petitioner’s appointment
is legally sustainable when Respondent No. 7 has not assailed the
merit list, particularly in light of the allegation that the petitioner
was aware of the erroneous award of excess marks and
nevertheless derived benefit from it?
5. Whether the State Appellate Teachers Authority acted
within the scope of its statutory jurisdiction in directing
consideration for the appointment of a specific individual, namely
the petitioner, or whether such a direction amounts to an excess of
the authority vested in it under the governing rules?
6. Whether a candidate who has approached the judicial
forum and established prejudice is alone entitled to consequential
relief, or whether similarly situated candidates–irrespective of
their participation in the litigation–are also entitled to parity of
treatment in furtherance of the constitutional mandate of equality
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
FINDINGS:
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, after the factual and legal positions of the parties
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
22/47had already crystallized on the basis of the affidavits on
record, respondent nos. 5 and 6 (Bihar School Examination
Board) can be permitted to approbate and reprobate their own
pleadings by seeking amendment through the interlocutory
application I.A. No. 01/26 at the fag end of the proceedings?
Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings and
materials brought on record, this Court finds that the respondent
Board had, in its earlier counter affidavits, taken a categorical
stand that the marks-sheet issued to the petitioner by the erstwhile
Bihar Intermediate Education Council was “partially wrong” on
account of inadvertent error in calculation of the aggregate marks,
while simultaneously admitting that the individual subject-wise
marks were correct and that the document itself had been issued by
the competent authority. The Board had further indicated that steps
were being taken to communicate the correction to the concerned
institution.
Subsequently, in compliance with the order of this
Court, a detailed counter affidavit was filed explaining the basis of
its earlier response with reference to available records such as the
R.T.R. and the connected file, and even constituted a three-
member committee to examine the matter. At no stage in these
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
23/47
affidavits was a conclusive plea raised that the marks-sheet itself
was forged or fabricated.
However, by way of the present interlocutory
application, respondent nos. 5 and 6 now seek to substitute
paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit so as to introduce a
materially different plea that the marks-sheet reflecting 558 marks
is “false and fabricated.” Such a shift is not merely clarificatory
but amounts to a fundamental alteration of the stand previously
taken before this Court as well as before the State Appellate
Authority.
It is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be
permitted to approbate and reprobate, nor can it be allowed to
blow hot and cold in the same breath. Judicial discipline demands
consistency in pleadings, particularly where admissions have
already been made. An admission, unless satisfactorily explained,
constitutes substantive evidence against the maker, and courts are
slow to permit its withdrawal when such withdrawal would
prejudice the opposite party or alter the nature of the controversy.
In the present case, the controversy had already
crystallized on the basis of multiple affidavits exchanged between
the parties. The petitioner has specifically asserted that he acted
bona fide on the strength of a marks-sheet issued by the statutory
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
24/47
authority and has continued in service for a considerable period.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Nagubai
Ammal & Ors vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors AIR 1956 SUPREME
COURT 593 and Premlata alias Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee AIR 2022
SUPREME COURT 1560 to substantiate his submissions.
Permitting the respondent Board at this belated stage to substitute
its earlier admission with an allegation of fabrication would not
only widen the scope of the lis but would also cause manifest
prejudice to the petitioner, who has structured his defence on the
foundation of the Board’s earlier stand.
Equally significant is the absence of any compelling
explanation from the respondent justifying such a volte-face. The
proposed amendment is not shown to be based on any newly
discovered material nor on facts that were previously unavailable
despite due diligence. Rather, it appears to be an attempt to
improve the case after the pleadings have matured — a course
consistently discouraged by constitutional courts.
The procedural law governing amendments is intended
to advance the cause of justice, not to permit a litigant to retract
admissions or fundamentally reconstruct its case at an advanced
stage of adjudication. Allowing such an amendment would
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
25/47
undermine the certainty of judicial proceedings and run contrary to
the principles of finality and fairness that guide writ jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered
opinion that respondent nos. 5 and 6 cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate their own pleadings by seeking
amendment through Interlocutory Application No. 01/26 at the fag
end of the proceedings. The application, being devoid of bonafides
and likely to prejudice the adjudicatory process, does not merit
acceptance.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded herein-above, this
Court finds no merit in the prayer made by respondent nos. 5 and 6
in Interlocutory Application No. 01/26 seeking substitution of the
averments contained in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit. The
attempt to introduce a plea diametrically opposed to the earlier
stand, after the pleadings have attained finality, cannot be
countenanced in law. The interlocutory application, therefore,
stands rejected.
2. Whether the declaration of the petitioner’s
marksheet as “forged and fabricated” by the State Appellate
Teachers Authority is sustainable in law in the absence of a
duly conducted inquiry, cogent documentary evidence, and
compliance with the principles of natural justice?
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
26/47
A finding that a candidate’s marksheet is “forged and
fabricated” entails grave civil consequences, impacting not only
his academic standing but also his continued employment and
reputation. Such a conclusion, therefore, must be founded upon a
thorough inquiry, supported by unimpeachable documentary
evidence, and preceded by adherence to the principles of natural
justice.
Upon consideration of the pleadings and materials on
record, it does not appear that any regular or structured inquiry
was conducted before the petitioner’s marksheet was branded as
fabricated. There is no indication that the document was subjected
to forensic or expert verification, nor is there any categorical
material to show that the issuing authority had disowned the
marksheet. Mere discrepancy in the aggregate, without anything
further, cannot ipso facto lead to a finding of forgery. The law
draws a clear distinction between an administrative mistake and a
fraudulent document, and the latter must be proved with a higher
degree of certainty.
Significantly, this Court also finds that the very records
on which the respondents seek to rely are not free from doubt.
Questions have arisen regarding the authenticity and reliability of
the Reserve Tabulation Register (RTR) and related tabulation
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
27/47
records. The absence of the tabulator’s signature on the RTR,
coupled with the admitted destruction of certain original registers
in a fire and the shifting stands taken at different stages, casts a
shadow over the evidentiary value of such records. When the
foundational documents of the authority themselves appear
questionable, it would be legally unsafe to sustain a serious charge
of fabrication against the petitioner solely on their basis. Suspicion
surrounding the respondents’ own records necessarily weakens the
conclusiveness of the allegation sought to be drawn therefrom.
Equally important is the requirement of compliance with
the rule of audi alteram partem. Before arriving at a determination
so prejudicial in nature, the authority was duty-bound to provide
the petitioner with notice of the allegations, disclose the materials
relied upon, and afford him a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Any determination rendered in breach of these safeguards stands
vitiated by procedural impropriety.
It is well settled that fraud must be specifically pleaded
and strictly proved, and cannot be presumed from uncertain or
disputed records. A quasi-judicial authority is expected to base its
conclusions on cogent evidence rather than conjecture. In
circumstances where the respondents’ own documents are under a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
28/47
cloud, the declaration of the marksheet as forged becomes all the
more untenable.
It is also noteworthy that where two views are possible
–one pointing to clerical error and the other to deliberate
fabrication–the authority must adopt the course supported by
evidence rather than presumption. A quasi-judicial determination
cannot substitute suspicion for proof.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the declaration of the petitioner’s marksheet as
“forged and fabricated,” having been rendered without a duly
conducted inquiry, without substantiating documentary evidence,
and in breach of the principles of natural justice, is unsustainable
in the eye of law. Such a finding, being procedurally flawed and
evidentially unsupported, cannot be allowed to stand.
3. Whether an admitted or established
clerical/administrative error in the recording of marks, if
detected subsequently, can be permitted to subsist merely on
account of lapse of time, particularly when continuance of such
error results in conferring an undue advantage upon one
candidate at the expense of another who may be lawfully
entitled to such benefit?
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
29/47
The question whether an admitted clerical or
administrative error in the recording of marks can be permitted to
subsist merely on account of lapse of time assumes determinative
significance in the present matter, for the petitioner’s claim to
appointment substantially rests upon the continuance of such error.
The Court must therefore examine not only the existence of the
mistake but also the knowledge attributable to the beneficiary and
the consequence of its continuance upon competing candidates.
At the outset, it is not in serious dispute that the
aggregate marks reflected in the petitioner’s marksheet were
shown as 558, whereas upon subsequent scrutiny by the Board, the
actual total was found to be 554. The Board, in its counter
affidavit, categorically stated that while the individual subject-wise
marks were correctly recorded, the aggregate appears to have been
erroneously entered due to an inadvertent mistake in the cross list
transmitted by the erstwhile Council. More importantly, during the
course of oral submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
initially sought to justify the discrepancy by suggesting that the
petitioner might have been awarded grace marks. However, upon
being called upon to substantiate this contention with reference to
the governing regulations, counsel fairly conceded that he was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
30/47
unable to demonstrate any statutory basis for the grant of such
grace marks.
Respondents have brought on record the Bihar
Intermediate Education Council Regulations for the
Intermediate Examination in Arts, Science and Commerce,
point 7 of which talks about moderation of result which has been
quoted as under:
“7. MODERATION OF RESULT :
A candidate for the Intermediate Examination in Arts,
Science or Commerce, who has appeared in all the subjects
offered by him but has failed in one subject or in two subjects and
the shortage from pass marks in the subject or subjects concerned
is within the limit prescribed below shall be given the marks by
which he is short in the subject or subjects concerned and
declared to have passed the examination and his division shall be
determined accordingly.
Failure in one subject – only 5% in each subject.
Failure in two subjects – only 3% in each subject.
NOTE : In a subject or group of subjects where separate
passing is necessary in part of it, the shortage shall be calculated
on the basis of full marks in that part. Failure in different parts of
a subject shall be deemed to be failure in one subject only.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
31/47
Also para 9 deals with extra grace marks in case of
change of division which has been quoted as under:
“Provided that if a candidate is short of the minimum
aggregate marks prescribed for first or second division by 5
marks or less, he/she shall be given minimum marks required to
make up the deficiency and shall be placed in the higher division
but position in that higher division shall be determined on the
basis of the original marks secured by him.”
A perusal of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council
Regulations relating to Moderation of Results makes it evident that
additional marks could only be awarded in narrowly circumscribed
situations–such as marginal deficiency for passing, prevention of
abnormal results, or other structured moderation exercises
uniformly applied. The petitioner does not fall within any such
category. This admission, coupled with the absence of any
documentary proof of moderation, leads to the irresistible
inference that the enhanced aggregate was not the result of a
lawful academic process.
What further weighs against the petitioner is the
question of knowledge. The petitioner cannot plausibly contend
that the discrepancy was beyond his awareness. A candidate is
presumed to know his own performance and the marks obtained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
32/47
individual subjects. When the sum of the subject-wise marks does
not correspond with the declared aggregate, the anomaly is neither
latent nor technical; it is apparent on the face of the record. Yet, the
petitioner relied upon the inflated aggregate to secure a higher
position in the merit list and ultimately obtain appointment. The
plea that the Board remained inactive for several years does not
dilute the petitioner’s obligation to act fairly, particularly when
public employment–where merit is the governing criterion–is
involved.
The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Secondary Education,
Assam vs. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman & Ors. (2003) 12 Supreme
Court Cases 408 to contend that a long-standing mistake ought not
to be unsettled after the passage of considerable time. It therefore
becomes necessary to closely examine the ratio of the said
decision. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement is quoted
herein:
“12. Delay defeats discretion and loss
of limitation destroys the remedy itself. Delay
amounting to laches results in benefit of
discretionary power being denied on principles of
equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of
the remedy, is a principle based on public policy
and utility and not equity alone. There ought to be
a limit of time by which human affairs stand settled
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
33/47and uncertainty is lost. Regulation 8 confers a
right on the applicant and a power coupled with an
obligation on the Board to make correction in the
date of birth subject to the ground of wrong
calculation or clerical error being made out. A
reasonable procedure has been prescribed for
processing the application through Inspector of
Schools who would verify the school records and
submit report to the Board so as to exclude from
consideration the claims other than those
permissible within the framework of Regulation 8.
Power to pass order for correction is vested on a
higher functionary like Secretary of the Board. An
inaccuracy creeping in at the stage of writing the
certificates only, though all other prior documents
are correct in all respects, is capable of being.
corrected within a period of three years from the
date of issuance of certificate.
13. Three years period provided by the
Regulation is a very reasonable period. On the very
date of issuance of the certificate the concerned
student is put to notice as to the entries made in the
certificate. Everyone remembers his age and date
of birth. The student would realize within no time
that the date of birth as entered in the certificate is
not correct if that be so once the certificate is
placed in his hands. Based on the certificate the
applicant would seek admission elsewhere in an
educational institution or might seek a job or
career where he will have to mention his age and
date of birth. Even if he failed to notice the error on
the date of issuance of the certificate, he would
come to know the same shortly thereafter. Thus, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
34/47period of three years, as prescribed by Regulation
3, is quite reasonable. It is not something like
prescribing a period of limitation for filing a suit.
The prescription of three years is laying down of a
dividing fine before which the power of the Board
to make correction ought to be invoked and beyond
which it may not be invoked. Belated applications,
if allowed to be received, may open a pandora’s
box. Records may not be available and evidence
may have been lost. Such evidence-even convenient
evidence- may be brought into existence as may
defy scrutiny. The prescription of three years bar
takes care of all such situations. The provision is
neither illegal nor beyond the purview of Section
24 of the Act and also cannot be called arbitrary or
unreasonable. The applicants seeking rectification
within a period of three years form a class by
themselves and such prescription has a reasonable
nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. No
fault can be found therewith on the anvil of Article
14 of the Constitution.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the
appeals are allowed. The Judgement of the
Division Bench of the High Court is set aside.
However as already noted and in view of the very
fair concession given by the learned counsel for the
appellant Board, it is directed that this judgment
shall not have any effect or bearing on the relief
allowed to the two respondents herein by correcting
the entries as to date of birth made in their
respective certificates. No order as to the costs.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
35/47
In this case, the dispute pertained to the correction of the
candidate’s date of birth recorded in educational certificates. The
Supreme Court, while considering the equities involved, observed
that where an entry has remained unchallenged for a long duration
and is supported by institutional records, interference at a belated
stage may not be warranted. The Court emphasized the importance
of certainty in service matters and cautioned against reopening
settled positions unless compelling reasons exist. However, the
reliance placed upon the aforesaid judgment is misplaced, for the
factual matrix therein is fundamentally distinguishable from the
present case.
Firstly, the correction in Sarifuz Zaman Case (supra)
concerned a personal service detail and did not operate to the
detriment of any rival candidate. The Supreme Court’s reasoning
was significantly influenced by the absence of third-party
prejudice. In contrast, the error in the present case directly impacts
the inter se merit of candidates. The inflated aggregate enabled the
petitioner to occupy a higher rank, thereby potentially displacing
candidates who were legitimately entitled to consideration.
Secondly, the Supreme Court stressed that the entry
sought to be relied upon must be borne out from authentic
institutional records. Here, the situation is markedly different. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
36/47
credibility of the Board’s tabulation records themselves came
under judicial scrutiny, and this Court had earlier expressed
reservations regarding the reliability of the Reserve Tabulation
Register, particularly in light of missing signatures and
unexplained discrepancies. Thus, this is not a case where
unimpeachable records uniformly support the petitioner’s position.
Thirdly, and most crucially, the doctrine protecting long-
standing entries cannot be invoked by a party who had knowledge
of the mistake and nevertheless elected to benefit from it. Equity
aids the vigilant, not those who knowingly capitalize on an error.
The petitioner’s inability to establish any lawful grant of grace
marks, coupled with the apparent mathematical inconsistency,
militates against the argument of innocent reliance.
The Court must also remain mindful that public
employment is governed by constitutional mandates of fairness
and equality under Articles 14 and 16. Permitting a demonstrably
erroneous aggregate to continue merely because it went undetected
for some time would amount to perpetuating an illegality. The
principle is well settled that there can be no estoppel against law,
and administrative lapses cannot ripen into enforceable rights
when they infringe upon the legitimate claims of others.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
37/47
It is equally relevant that the continuance of the mistake
is not a neutral act; it actively confers an undue advantage upon
the petitioner at the expense of candidates placed below him in the
merit hierarchy. A court of equity cannot sanction a situation
where an error distorting merit is allowed to survive simply due to
the efflux of time. Stability in administration is desirable, but not
at the cost of fairness in selection.
Viewed from this perspective, the present case is not one
of a harmless clerical irregularity but of a mistake that strikes at
the very foundation of the selection process. The petitioner’s
argument, if accepted, would effectively legitimize an appointment
grounded upon an incorrect merit position. Such a course would
erode public confidence in recruitment mechanisms and defeat the
principle that selection must reflect true academic performance.
Accordingly, this Court holds that an admitted error in
the recording of aggregate marks cannot be permitted to subsist
merely on account of lapse of time, particularly when:
1. the beneficiary was aware, or reasonably ought to
have been aware, of the discrepancy;
2. no statutory provision justifies the excess marks; and
3. the continuance of the error results in tangible
prejudice to other candidates.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
38/47
The decision in Board of Secondary Education of
Assam vs. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman (supra) does not advance the
petitioner’s case, being clearly distinguishable on facts as well as
on principle. Rather than supporting the petitioner, it reinforces the
broader proposition that belated corrections must be evaluated in
light of equity, authenticity of records, and absence of prejudice–
conditions that are conspicuously lacking here.
In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot invoke the
doctrine of long-standing mistake as a shield to retain a benefit
that was never lawfully due. The balance of equity tilts decisively
in favour of preserving the integrity of the merit process rather
than protecting an advantage founded upon an admitted error. The
issue is, therefore, answered against the petitioner, and it is held
that the petitioner is not entitled to claim continuation in service or
any consequential benefit on the strength of an erroneous
aggregate that materially affected the merit list.
4. Whether the challenge to the petitioner’s
appointment is legally sustainable when Respondent No. 7 has
not assailed the merit list, particularly in light of the allegation
that the petitioner was aware of the erroneous award of excess
marks and nevertheless derived benefit from it?
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
39/47
The issue that arises for determination is whether the
challenge to the petitioner’s appointment can be regarded as
legally sustainable when Respondent No. 7 has not specifically
assailed the merit list, particularly in the backdrop of the allegation
that the petitioner was aware of the erroneous grant of excess
marks and yet continued to derive advantage therefrom.
Ordinarily, the merit list constitutes the foundation of
any public selection process, and a challenge to an appointment is
often accompanied by a corresponding challenge to the merit list
from which such appointment flows. However, this principle
cannot be applied in a rigid or mechanical manner so as to defeat
the larger mandate of fairness in public employment. Where the
very basis of an individual’s placement in the merit list is alleged
to be vitiated by a patent error — especially one resulting in undue
enrichment — the absence of a formal challenge to the entire merit
list does not, by itself, render the objection untenable.
Public appointments must conform not only to
procedural regularity but also to substantive fairness. If it is
demonstrated that a candidate secured placement on the strength of
marks erroneously awarded, the appointment becomes vulnerable,
as no person can claim a vested right on the basis of a mistake. The
law is equally clear that an error which strikes at the root of merit
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
40/47
cannot be permitted to perpetuate merely because it remained
unchallenged at an earlier stage.
Of particular significance is the allegation that the
petitioner was aware, from the inception, of the excess marks
reflected in the marksheet and nonetheless chose to rely upon the
same. A candidate who knowingly benefits from an apparent
irregularity cannot later invoke technical pleas to shield such
advantage. The doctrine that one must approach the process with
clean hands applies with equal force to matters of public selection.
Acceptance of a benefit, despite awareness of its erroneous origin,
cannot be equated with an innocent or bona fide mistake; rather, it
raises serious doubts regarding the fairness of the claim itself.
In such circumstances, the challenge mounted by
Respondent No. 7 cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that
the merit list was not independently questioned. When the legality
of an appointment is itself under cloud due to an alleged
foundational error, the Court is duty-bound to examine the validity
of the appointment rather than be constrained by technical
omissions in the manner of challenge. To hold otherwise would
amount to allowing a manifest irregularity to attain legitimacy
through procedural silence.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
41/47
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the challenge to the petitioner’s appointment remains legally
sustainable notwithstanding the absence of a direct challenge to
the merit list. If the appointment is shown to have been secured on
the basis of excess marks known to the petitioner, the same cannot
be protected in law. The issue is therefore answered in the
affirmative.
5. Whether the State Appellate Teachers Authority
acted within the scope of its statutory jurisdiction in directing
consideration for the appointment of a specific individual,
namely the private respondent no. 7, or whether such a
direction amounts to an excess of the authority vested in it
under the governing rules?
The question that falls for consideration is whether the
State Appellate Teachers Authority acted within the confines of its
statutory jurisdiction while directing consideration for the
appointment of a specific individual, namely the private
respondent no. 7 , or whether such direction transgresses the limits
of the authority vested in it under the governing framework.
It is a settled principle of administrative law that every
statutory authority is a creature of the statute and must operate
strictly within the bounds of the powers expressly conferred upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
42/47
it. Any action taken beyond such delegated authority is liable to be
regarded as ultra vires and therefore unsustainable in law. The role
of an appellate authority, particularly in matters relating to public
employment, is ordinarily supervisory and corrective in nature —
to examine the legality of the process, ensure adherence to
prescribed rules, and remedy procedural irregularities where
established. However, such authority does not extend to
substituting the statutory selection mechanism by directing the
appointment or consideration of a particular candidate.
The governing rules contemplate that appointments to
public posts must be carried out through a transparent and merit-
based selection process by the competent appointing body. Where
an appellate forum proceeds to single out an individual for
consideration, it risks encroaching upon the domain reserved for
the recruiting authority. Such a course not only disturbs the
institutional balance envisaged under the statutory scheme but also
raises legitimate concerns regarding fairness and equal opportunity
among all eligible candidates who may have participated in the
selection process.
In the present case, the direction issued by the State
Appellate Teachers Authority is not confined to rectifying a
procedural defect or ordering reconsideration in accordance with
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
43/47
law; rather, it tends toward favoring a specific individual for
appointment. Even if the authority perceived some irregularity
warranting interference, the legally permissible course would have
been to remit the matter to the competent authority for fresh
consideration in accordance with the applicable rules, without
indicating or preferring any particular candidate.
Judicial discipline demands that statutory bodies refrain
from assuming powers that the legislature has consciously
withheld. When an authority travels beyond its jurisdiction, the
legitimacy of its decision becomes vulnerable, irrespective of the
intention behind such exercise of power. The emphasis must
always remain on preserving the integrity of the selection process
rather than advancing the claim of any one individual.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
the State Appellate Teachers Authority exceeded the scope of its
statutory jurisdiction in directing consideration for the
appointment of the private respondent no. 7. Such a direction
cannot be sustained, as it amounts to an impermissible expansion
of appellate power and intrudes upon the functions of the
appointing authority. The issue is therefore answered in the
negative.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
44/47
6. Whether a candidate who has approached the
judicial forum and established prejudice is alone entitled to
consequential relief, or whether similarly situated candidates
–irrespective of their participation in the litigation–are also
entitled to parity of treatment in furtherance of the
constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India?
The issue that arises for determination is whether the
consequential relief flowing from the present adjudication should
be confined to the contesting respondent alone, or whether the
benefit must also extend to other candidates who stand similarly
placed in the merit list.
From the materials on record, it emerges that the
petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list, whose
eligibility now stands seriously questioned in view of the
discrepancy relating to the award of marks. Respondent No. 7,
who has raised the challenge, is placed at Serial No. 3.
Significantly, the candidate placed at Serial No. 2 was neither
impleaded before the State Appellate Teachers Authority nor
before this Court. The explanation offered is that the said
candidate is presently employed elsewhere and is allegedly not
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
45/47
interested in pursuing the appointment; however, such a
submission remains unsupported by any cogent material on record.
In matters concerning public employment, the principle
of fairness demands that no candidate who stands higher in the
order of merit be bypassed merely on the basis of assumptions
regarding his disinterest. The right flowing from placement in a
merit list is not liable to be defeated unless the candidate expressly
relinquishes the claim or is otherwise found ineligible in
accordance with law. Any direction that ignores a higher-ranked
candidate without affording an opportunity of consideration would
fall short of the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that
the consequence of the present determination cannot be confined
exclusively to Respondent No. 7 without first extending due
consideration to the candidate placed higher in the merit list. The
competent authority shall, therefore, be at liberty to verify the
willingness and eligibility of the candidate placed at Serial No. 2
and thereafter proceed in accordance with the applicable rules and
governing framework. In the event the said candidate is found
unwilling, ineligible, or otherwise unavailable, it shall be open to
the authority to take such further steps as may be permissible in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
46/47
law with respect to the next eligible candidate in the order of
merit, that being private respondent no. 7.
21. In light of the foregoing discussion and the findings
recorded on the issues framed herein above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the State
Appellate Teachers Authority warrants partial affirmation. The
Tribunal was justified in examining the legality of the petitioner’s
selection and in directing corrective measures where irregularities
were found to have affected the sanctity of the selection process.
However, the declaration of the petitioner’s marksheet as “forged
and fabricated,” having been rendered in the absence of a duly
conducted inquiry and unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot be
sustained in law and it is accordingly set aside to that extent.
22. Consequently, in order to restore fairness and
transparency in the matter of public appointment, the competent
authority is directed to undertake a fresh preparation of the merit
list on the basis of verified and legally admissible records, and
thereafter carry the process of appointment to its logical
conclusion strictly in accordance with the applicable rules. While
doing so, the authority shall also take into consideration the claim
of all eligible candidates in the order of merit. Since the candidate
placed at Serial No. 2 was not a party to the proceedings, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3898 of 2018 dt.12-02-2026
47/47
authority shall first ascertain his willingness and eligibility before
proceeding further, and thereafter adopt such course as may be
permissible under law.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed
in the aforesaid terms and directions. All pending Interlocutory
Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to
costs.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 29.01.2026
Uploading Date 12.02.2026
Transmission Date NA