Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court dismissed an appeal by a former teacher who challenged his removal from service after failing to pass the mandatory Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) examination. The appellant, who served as a Block Teacher at a government school in Maner, was required under the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) norms to complete this qualification.
The teacher had appeared for the D.El.Ed final exam in October 2018. His result, published in January 2019, showed that he had failed in the “Pedagogy in Math” paper by scoring 26 out of 70, whereas 32 was the minimum required. He applied for scrutiny of the marks, and while waiting for the outcome, did not take the supplementary examination held in March 2019.
Later, through an RTI application, he obtained a copy of his answer sheet. It showed that he was awarded 32 marks in total—just enough to pass. He claimed that this should have qualified him and his termination was unjustified. However, on examining the answer-sheet and internal markings, the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) identified that the marks were tampered with—particularly, answers initially marked as “1” had been altered to appear as “4”.
BSEB blacklisted the person who carried out the tampering and reported the incident to the police. The learned Single Judge had already dismissed the teacher’s writ petition earlier, noting the interpolation and upholding the BSEB’s actions.
The High Court, in this appeal, carefully compared the handwriting and the style of marking between the original examiner and the allegedly tampered figures. It observed that:
- The “4” marks awarded to certain questions did not match the original examiner’s handwriting.
- There was clear evidence that “1” was altered into “4” in at least two key answers.
- The scrutiny mechanism is only for re-checking the total marks and not for re-evaluating answers.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument that he had been prejudiced by the delay in receiving the scrutiny result. It noted that since he had failed the exam, he should have taken the supplementary test. Not doing so was his own oversight, and the Board could not be held responsible for that.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the earlier decision and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), stating that no prejudice was caused by the Board’s actions and that the tampered answer-sheet could not be relied upon.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This decision underscores the seriousness with which the judiciary treats academic integrity. It establishes that tampering with answer-sheets is a grave offense, and any benefits gained through such malpractice will not be sustained in court.
It also highlights the importance of teachers fulfilling statutory training requirements, such as D.El.Ed, under the NCTE norms. The Court clarified that mere procedural delays (such as delay in scrutiny results) do not absolve a candidate from their responsibility to appear in supplementary exams if they initially fail.
For public authorities, the judgment affirms that proactive measures—such as blacklisting and legal action against those involved in tampering—will be supported by the judiciary.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Was the appellant wrongly removed from service due to exam failure?
❖ Court’s Decision: No. He failed to meet the minimum qualifying marks and did not appear for the supplementary exam. - Did the scrutiny of marks legally increase his score to a passing level?
❖ Court’s Decision: No. The increased marks were found to be tampered with, and the Board took corrective action. - Was the appellant prejudiced due to delay in communication of scrutiny result?
❖ Court’s Decision: No. He should have taken the supplementary exam while waiting.
Case Title
Vinod Pratap Narayan vs. Bihar School Examination Board & Ors.
Case Number
LPA No. 1088 of 2023
(in CWJC No. 6502 of 2020)
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble The Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate
- For the Respondents:
• Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
• Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/c9d4d59d-baeb-4956-a458-c128386b8abd.pdf&search=Blacklisting
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.
