Disposed¶8

Kumari Babli v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Feb 2026CWJC/2089/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

STET-25 answer-key objection; Bihar School Examination Board; Examination Controller as competent authority; liberty to file fresh representation within two weeks; reasoned and speaking order within four weeks; writ disposed of, no merits decided; single bench (Harish Kumar, J); no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without deciding merits: petitioner permitted to file a fresh representation with necessary facts before the Examination Controller, BSEB (respondent No. 5) preferably within two weeks, failing nothing; upon such filing, the concerned respondent must issue a reasoned and speaking order addressing the objection within a further four weeks. ¶8

Kumari Babli Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the BSEB must consider the Objection Form submitted by the petitioner through the official portal in respect of STET-25, rectify anomalies in the evaluation process, and provide a revised answer key after considering her objection.

¶2 (prayer clause (a))

Court's answer

The Court found that the petitioner's objection had not been considered nor brought to its logical conclusion.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Court extended liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation bringing on record the necessary facts before respondent No. 5 (Examination Controller, BSEB), preferably within two weeks.

¶6

Key takeaways

If such a representation is filed, the concerned respondent (Examination Controller, BSEB) shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the petitioner's objection within a further period of four weeks.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Oral Judgment, Harish Kumar, J), CWJC No.2089 of 2026, Kumari Babli v. State of Bihar & others (09-02-2026): Petitioner, a STET-25 candidate, complained that though BSEB released the answer key on 24.11/2025 permitting objections through the official portal, and she sought more marks and later represented to the Examination Controller on 10.01.2026 (Annexure-P/6), her objection was never decided. Finding the objection unaddressed, the Court disposed of the writ petition by extending liberty to file a fresh representation before the Examination Controller, BSEB (respondent No. 5), preferably within two weeks, with a mandate to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the objection within a further four weeks. No statute or precedent cited; merits not adjudicated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2089 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Kumari Babli, Daughter of Ganesh Mandal, resident of Village- Jayrampur, Ward No. 10, P.O. and P.S.-Murliganj, District- Madhepura, 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

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (07) For the BSEB : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 09-02-2026

¶17

Heard the parties.

¶18

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this

¶19

Court seeking following reliefs:

¶20

“(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 the Official Portal in Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (STET) – 25 conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB).

¶21

(b) For a direction to Respondent

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.2089 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 2/3

¶23

Board to consider the Objection and rectify the anomalies in the evaluation process of the said test.

¶24

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

¶25

(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.”

¶26

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted

¶27

that despite the fact the respondent Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSEB’) has released answer key for the STET-25 on Official Website of the BSEB on 24.11/2025 and allowed the candidates to raise objections through official Website and in the light of the aforesaid

¶28

instruction, the petitioner has downloaded his response/objection from the official Website categorically stating that she should be given more marks, till date no decision has been taken.

¶29

For redressal of the grievance, the petitioner has also submitted representation before the Examination Controller, BSEB on 10.01.2026, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-P/6 to the instant writ petition, however, till date the respondent authorities sitting tight over the matter.

¶30

Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned Advocate for the

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.2089 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026 3/3

¶32

BSEB fairly submits that in identical writ petitions, the petitioners were extended liberty to file fresh representation before the Examination Controller, BSEB, who is the competent authority to look into the matter and take appropriate decision.

¶33

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the aforesaid facts that the objection of the petitioner has not been considered and brought to its logical conclusion, this Court deems it fit and proper to extend liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation bringing on record the necessary facts before the respondent no.5 (Examination Controller, BSEB), preferably within a period of two weeks from today.

¶34

In case, such a representation is filed, the concerned respondent shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the objection raised by the petitioner within a further period of four weeks.

¶35

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶37

uday/-

¶38

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	10.02.2026
Transmission Date	NA

Kumari Babli v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Babli v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar through Mr. Amrit Lal Meena, the Chief Secretary

Sukhraj Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Alka Kumari Vs Amit Kumar Nirala

Kaushal Kumar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Amit Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar