Patna High Court

Amod Kumar SinghversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ALOK KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The Court held that the State Appellate Authority’s finding of forgery was unsustainable and its direction exceeded jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of the writ petition and an order for a fresh merit‑list preparation.

Summary

The petitioner, a Block Teacher appointed in 2010, challenged an order of the State Appellate Authority that declared his 1994 Intermediate marksheet forged and directed his cancellation in favour of a private respondent. The dispute centered on whether the petitioner’s aggregate marks were 558 (as shown on his marksheet) or 554 (as per the Board’s tabulation registers) and whether any grace marks were lawfully awarded. The Court examined the Board’s affidavits, the lack of a proper inquiry, violations of natural‑justice principles, and the Board’s shifting pleadings. It held that the finding of forgery was unsupported, the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction, and the petitioner could not rely on a clerical error that gave him an undue advantage. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the authority was directed to prepare a fresh merit list considering all eligible candidates.

Issues considered

Whether the Bihar School Examination Board can amend its pleadings at the fag end of the proceedings by seeking substitution of its earlier averments
Whether the declaration that the petitioner’s marksheet was forged and fabricated is sustainable in the absence of a duly conducted inquiry, cogent evidence and compliance with natural‑justice principles
Whether an admitted clerical error in recording marks may be allowed to subsist merely because of lapse of time, especially when it confers an undue advantage
Whether the challenge to the petitioner’s appointment is legally sustainable when the private respondent has not directly assailed the merit list but the petitioner is alleged to have known of the erroneous excess marks
Whether the State Appellate Teachers Authority acted within its statutory jurisdiction in directing consideration of a specific candidate or exceeded its powers
Whether relief granted to a litigant who established prejudice must be extended to similarly situated candidates in accordance with Articles 14 and 16

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects

Writ petition
Public employment
Marksheet forgery
Natural justice
Clerical error
Merit list
Equality Articles 14 and 16
Appellate authority jurisdiction
Amendment of pleadings
Grace marks

Judgment

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

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

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

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
21/47

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?

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
22/47

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?

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
33/47

and 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
34/47

period 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

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…