Disposed¶31

Nitish Kumar Chaubey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Feb 2026CWJC/1946/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

STET 2025; Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test; Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB); Objection Form; official portal; three questions with authoritative answers unadjudicated; 76 marks; anomalies in evaluation; revised answer key; normalization; advertisement no. PR 218/2025; detailed representation; adjudication within two weeks; mandamus; Patna High Court; CWJC 1946 of 2026; Ajit Kumar J; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with directions: petitioner to file a detailed representation within one week (referring to the earlier representation and raising normalization issues if not already raised), which the authorities shall adjudicate within two weeks of filing. ¶31

Nitish Kumar Chaubey Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the BSEB must consider and adjudicate the petitioner's Objection Form (including objections to three questions with authoritative answers) submitted in STET-2025. +3 more

¶22

Court's answer

Instead of keeping the matter pending, the petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation with all such particulars within one week, referring to her earlier representation.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

On filing such representation, it shall be adjudicated by the authorities within two weeks from the date of filing.

¶29

Key takeaways

If not already raised for consideration, the petitioner may also raise the issues of normalization in terms of the advertisement before the authorities concerned.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ajit Kumar, J), CWJC No.1946 of 2026, decided 05-02-2026 — Nitish Kumar Chaubey v. State of Bihar (Department of Education) and officials of the Bihar School Examination Board. Petitioner sought mandamus against BSEB to consider his Objection Form submitted through the Official Portal in STET-2025, to adjudicate objections to three questions with authoritative answers (which had gone unadjudicated; petitioner secured 76 marks), to rectify anomalies in evaluation, to provide a revised answer key, and to apply the normalization principles of advertisement no. PR 218/2025. The Board indicated that experts were already employed to adjudicate objections. Holding: rather than keep the matter pending, the petitioner was directed to file a detailed representation within one week, referring to his earlier representation and raising the normalization issue if not already raised; the representation was to be adjudicated within two weeks of its filing. Writ application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1946 of 2026

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Nitish Kumar Chaubey son of Birendra Kumar Chaubey, resident of Village and P.O.- Chunni, P.S.- Buxar Mufassil, District- Buxar, Bihar

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Buddh Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800017.

¶9

The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Buddh Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800017.

¶10

The Examination Controller, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Buddh Marg, Patna, Bihar- 800017.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhas Chandra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 05-02-2026 The instant writ application has been filed for the

¶14

following relief:-

¶15

“1. That this present writ application has been filed before this Hon’ble Court invoking its writ jurisdiction for following reliefs:-

¶16

a) For issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, or direction/directions to the Respondent Board to consider the submission of the Objection Form raised by the Petitioner through Official Portal in Secondary

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.1946 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 2/4

¶18

Teacher Eligibility Test (STET)- 2025 conducted by Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB).

¶19

b) For a direction to Respondent Board to consider the Objection and rectify the anomalies in the evaluation process of the said test.

¶20

c) For a direction to Respondent Board to provide Revised Answer Key of the Petitioner after considering his Objection Form.

¶21

d) For further pass any other order/orders in shape of consequential relief to the Petitioner may be found to legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite this petitioner having given authoritative answers to the questions, still she has secured 76 marks and, whereas, the objections with respect to three questions with authoritative answer have already been provided still, such objections have not been adjudicated.

¶23

It is next submitted that even the principles of normalization, which also forms part of the advertisement no. PR 218/2025, appears not to have been invoked in the case of the petitioner.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.1946 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 3/4

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board, submits that since the appropriate representation with objections have already been filed, the petitioner may be directed to file a detailed representation in the light of the order passed by this Court and, on filing of such representation within the time so fixed, the same shall be adjudicated and necessary order shall be passed and, if the petitioner is found eligible then further action shall be taken. Learned counsel for the B.S.E.B. further submits that the experts have already been employed for adjudicating the objections and once such objections are there, the same shall be adjudicated.

¶26

Considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that instead of keeping this matter pending, the petitioner be directed to file representation with all such details for adjudication within a period of one week, referring to her earlier representation, which is said to have been filed and, even the issues of normalization in terms of the advertisement may also be raised, if the same has not been raised for consideration by the authorities concerned.

¶27