Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This writ petition was filed by a group of candidates (collectively, “petitioners”) who appeared in the Secondary Teachers Eligibility Test (STET), 2019 for the subject of Mathematics. Their principal grievance was that the examination questions were not of a uniform standard across different dates and, according to them, some questions were “out of syllabus.” The respondents included the State of Bihar and the Bihar School Examination Board (“the Board”). The matter was heard by the Patna High Court and decided on 18 February 2021 by a Single Judge Bench.

At an early stage, the Court directed the Board to supply a copy of the relevant question booklet so that the petitioners could file detailed objections. The Board complied; petitioners then submitted objections that were placed before an Expert Committee for scrutiny. After considering the objections, the Expert Committee recorded a central finding: the standard of questions in the Mathematics paper was not the same on the three different dates on which the re-examination was conducted—10.09.2020, 11.09.2020 and 14.09.2020. On 14.09.2020, the questions were below the graduation level; on 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020, the questions were above the intermediate level and, in many instances, of competitive or even graduation/post-graduation level.

The Committee’s specific observations (extracted in the judgment) were telling. For the test held on 10.09.2020, several questions (e.g., 56, 59, 60, 61, 74) were from the +2 curriculum but set at IIT entrance standard; others (66, 96, 100) were at graduation (Honours) and post-graduate standard. For 11.09.2020, questions such as 51–56 and 63 were +2 curriculum but IIT-level, while 76, 79, 85 and 99 were of graduation/post-graduation standard. In contrast, on 14.09.2020 the questions were assessed as below graduation standard. These details formed the factual bedrock for the Court’s analysis.

Armed with these findings, the Court considered whether the resulting disparity warranted judicial interference with the declared results. The Court expressly accepted that competitive examinations held on multiple dates should maintain the same standard so that no cohort gains an undue advantage or faces an undue handicap simply by virtue of the date on which they sat for the paper. At the same time, the Court noted a critical gap in the pleadings: there was no specific assertion or material to show that those who appeared on 14.09.2020 (the easier paper) were “favourite people” or had been deliberately given an advantage. In the absence of such pleading and proof, the Court declined to interfere with the examination result.

Rather than setting aside the results, the Court pivoted to systemic correction. It directed the Board to formulate a policy ensuring a uniform standard in multi-date examinations and to evolve an internal moderation mechanism. The Court emphasized that future examinations must avoid the situation that arose here—where, on some dates, questions were of competitive/graduation level, and on another date they were substantially easier. The Court described the present writ as an “eye-opener” for the Board and expressed “hope and trust” that the moderation mechanism would henceforth be religiously followed in all future examinations.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the petitioners substantive relief, but with clear guidelines for the examining authority going forward. The operative portion records that, with the above directions, the writ application stands disposed of. This outcome underscores a familiar judicial balance: courts are cautious about disrupting large-scale competitive examinations unless there is evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or systemic illegality; yet they are willing to issue forward-looking directions to prevent recurrence of unfairness.

For aspirants and administrators alike, the judgment serves as a blueprint for fairness in multi-shift or multi-date exams. Where the same subject test is held over several days, questions must be calibrated to a common difficulty band. If question sets vary widely in difficulty, some form of moderation (for instance, statistical equating or normalization) should be used so that merit is assessed on a level playing field. The High Court’s directions place the onus on the Board to institutionalize such moderation and to publish or, at least, transparently apply the methodology in future cycles.

In short, the Court did three things: (i) recognized the petitioners’ grievance as legitimate in principle (disparity in difficulty); (ii) refused to unsettle the existing results for want of specific pleadings of favoritism or targeted advantage; and (iii) mandated policy-level reform—uniform standard plus internal moderation—for future examinations. This approach protects current candidates from prolonged uncertainty while nudging the examining authority to adopt robust, fair assessment processes.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

• For candidates and the public: The judgment affirms that fairness in competitive examinations is not just about eliminating “out-of-syllabus” questions; it is also about maintaining a uniform standard across dates. Candidates who suspect uneven difficulty now have judicial support to demand moderation mechanisms, even if courts might hesitate to cancel results absent proof of bias.
• For the Board and other examining bodies: The Court’s directions require the Board to design, adopt, and “religiously follow” a moderation policy whenever an examination is spread across multiple dates/shifts. Failure to do so could invite future litigation and, in a more egregious case, judicial interference with results.
• For governance and policy: The decision encourages institutionalization of best practices such as blueprint-based paper setting, multi-form test assembly, and post-exam statistical equating. Implementing these will protect the credibility of recruitment processes and reduce the risk of large-scale cancellations or re-tests.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether the STET-2019 Mathematics question papers administered on different dates were of the same standard.
  — Finding: No. The Expert Committee confirmed significant variation—some dates had IIT-level or graduation/post-graduation standard questions; one date had questions below graduation level.
• Whether such disparity justified quashing results or ordering a re-test.
  — Decision: No interference. In the absence of specific pleadings that the cohort with the easier paper comprised “favourite people,” the Court was not inclined to interfere with the result.
• What corrective directions should be issued to prevent recurrence.
  — Direction: The Board must frame a policy to ensure uniform standards in multi-date examinations and adopt an internal moderation mechanism; these guidelines must be adhered to in all future examinations.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations) — Skip if none.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations) — Skip if none.

Case Title

Petitioners (several candidates) v. State of Bihar & Others (including the Bihar School Examination Board)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 8278 of 2020.

Citation(s)

2021(1) PLJR 818

Coram and Names of Judges — Always prefix with Hon’ble

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay (Oral Judgment dated 18.02.2021).

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate.
• For the respondent-State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General.
• For the respondent-Board: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate.

Link to Judgment

MTUjODI3OCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-nge9VshVCU0=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.