Sneha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate Ms. Pragya Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, AC to SC-13 For the U.O.I : Mr. Radhika Raman, Sr. Panel Counsel Ms. Punam Kumari Singh, CGC Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC For the BSEB : Mr. P.K Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate ======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶19

7 04-05-2026 The petitioner has filed the instant application for the

¶20

following relief (s) :-

¶21

“1. I. The answering respondents may kindly be directed to consider that petitioner's matriculation certificate as valid one issued on 20.06.2015 having 299 as aggregate marks and 44 marks in Sanskrit subject for all practical purposes.

¶22

II. The answering respondents may kindly direct to

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.589 of 2023(7) dt.04-05-2026

¶24

2/3

¶25

not at all be prejudiced with a document which stand surface as a marksheet said to be issued on same day i.e., 20.06.2015 having stamp "after scrutiny" with 269 as aggregate marks and only 14 marks in Sanskrit subject while showing the petitioner as fail.

¶26

III. Alternatively the answering respondents may kindly be directed to make necessary enquiry with a view to ensure bona fide towards the petitioner's marksheet as well as certificate issued in the year 2015 on same day, bearing different inputs altogether, highly prejudicial in nature on the face of it.

¶27

IV. The answering respondents, particularly the respondent no. 4 may kindly be directed to not at all be prejudiced with that certificate which is showing the petitioner as fail (recently made available to the petitioner in July 2022) whereas only rely over the certificate, which is showing the petitioners passed with 2nd Division in Matriculation since the same is genuine and valid one, became basis for not only the petitioner's, further education/ qualification at Intermediate and Graduation, rather qulified for the post of constable CRPF on completion of the competitive examination of the year 2021/selection under process in this regard.

¶28

V. The answering respondents may kindly be directed to not at all disturb the petitioner status in any manner, without taking reports on law so prescribed in this regard.

¶29

VI. Any other relief or reliefs also may kindly be

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.589 of 2023(7) dt.04-05-2026 3/3

¶31

allowed to the petitioner for which she be found entitled in the opinion of this Hon'ble Court.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been selected in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F) during pendency of the instant application, as per instructions, he seeks permission to withdraw this application.

¶33

In view of the above, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶34

All the interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶35

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶36

Shiv/-

¶37

U

Sneha Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneha Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ragini Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Rajdeo Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Jaimitra Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State of Bihar