Patna High Court
Sify Digital Services Limited vs The State Of Bihar Through Additional ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha, P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13538 of 2025
======================================================
SIFY Digital Services Limited having its Registered Office at 2nd floor
TIDEL PARK No.4, Canal Bank Road Taramani, Chennai-600113, E-mail-
[email protected] through its Authorised Officer Sanjeev Kumar
Agrawal, aged about 50 years, s/o Late Shri P.N. Agrawal, r/o G-3, Plot
No.296, Sector-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201010,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Patna, Government of Bihar Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat,
Patna-800015, Bihar, E-mail- [email protected]
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB), Sinha Library
Road, (Near Sinha Library), Patna-800017, Bihar, E-mail-
[email protected]
3. The Director, State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT)
Mahendru, Patna (Bihar), Pin No. 800006, E-mail-
[email protected]
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
: Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate, AAG-3
: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvasy, AC to AAG-3
For Respondent-BSEB : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA)
Date : 14-10-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner in the writ application has prayed
for following relief(s):
"(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order,
or direction, preferably in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
2/34
certiorari, for quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated
22.07.2025
(Annexure-P/24), whereby
the Petitioner has been blacklisted till
31.03.2026 and the contract has been
terminated.
(ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction
in the nature of mandamus,
commanding the Respondents to recall
and withdraw the impugned order, and
to restore the Petitioner's eligibility to
participate in future tenders issued by
the Respondent Department."
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1), passed by
Respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been debarred
from participating in any future tenders issued by the Education
Department, Government of Bihar, up to 31.03.2026. The said
order, it is contended, is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking, and in
violation of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in
CWJC No.1292 of 2025, decided on 16.04.2025, wherein the
earlier order of blacklisting dated 31.12.2024 was set aside and
the matter was remanded to the authorities to reconsider the
petitioner's defence in accordance with law.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Public
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013. The present petition has been instituted
through Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, AGM (Operations), who
is an Indian citizen duly authorized by virtue of Board
Resolutions dated 20.10.2023, 07.08.2025 and Authority Letter
dated 10.01.2025, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-P/2
to P/4 to this writ petition.
5. It is submitted that on 22.09.2023, Respondent
No.1 floated a Request for Proposal (RFP) bearing NIT No.
Online Examination/Educational/2023/01 for "Selection of
Agency to Setup Online Examination System and Conduct
Online Examinations (Computer Based Test)". The scope of
work included end-to-end provisioning of facilities for
conducting Computer Based Tests (CBT), including necessary
hardware, manpower, and technical requirements (Annexure-
P/5). Pursuant to the pre-bid clarifications issued on 09.10.2023
(Annexure-P/6), it was categorically stated by the respondents
that the question papers would be provided by BSEB/SCERT,
and the bidder was only to provide a Question Paper Authoring
Tool (QP Authoring Tool).
6. Upon evaluation of bids, the petitioner was
declared L1, and a Letter of Intent dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure-
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
P/7) was issued in its favour. The contract was formally
executed on 13.03.2024 (Annexure-P/8), for a period of five
years, extendable by two years, at the rate of ₹170 per candidate
(excluding GST). The petitioner duly furnished the Performance
Bank Guarantee of ₹10 lakhs in compliance with the contractual
terms. Clause 12 of the Contract empowered the Respondent to
terminate and blacklist the vendor only upon the occurrence of
specified events and after issuance of a 30-day written notice,
followed by a further 15 days' notice before blacklisting, as
detailed in the Note appended to Clause 12.1.
7. It is submitted that, after the award of contract,
the petitioner successfully conducted several large-scale
examinations for the Department, including BSSTET 2023,
CTT-1 2024, D.El.Ed 2024, Simultala Residential School
Pravesh Pariksha 2024, and STET 2024, wherein over
15,25,450 candidates appeared without any complaint of
irregularity. However, during the Competency Test for Local
Body Teacher-II (CTT-2) Examination 2024, conducted from
23.08.2024 to 26.08.2024, a limited issue arose on the final day
of the examination i.e. 26.08.2024, where certain repetition of
questions occurred in six subjects. The error affected only 749
candidates out of 85,252, i.e., less than 1% of total examinees.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the root
cause of the said repetition was the inordinate delay on the part
of SCERT in providing the question paper content. The content
for the first batch of 26.08.2024 was received late in the night of
25.08.2024, and for the second batch, the content was furnished
on the same day of the examination, with the last lot of
questions received as late as 12:30 PM for an exam scheduled at
3:00 PM. Due to such delay, and the necessity of curating
questions through the QP Authoring Tool--a time-intensive
process--the petitioner was left with inadequate time for review,
which inadvertently led to the said repetitions.
Subsequently, Respondent No.2, BSEB, constituted a six-
member committee to examine the incident. The petitioner duly
appeared before the said committee on 20.09.2024 and
submitted a written analysis (Annexure-P/9).
The Committee's Report dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-P/10)
clearly held that SCERT was equally responsible for the errors,
observing that the furnishing of incomplete and delayed content
was the primary cause. The Committee recommended:
(a) Re-examination in seven subjects at the
petitioner's cost,
(b) Deduction of 25% penalty from the relevant
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
invoice, and
(c) Warning to the petitioner that any future lapse
may attract blacklisting.
9. In compliance with the said recommendations,
BSEB directed the petitioner vide letter dated 22.10.2024
(Annexure-P/11) to conduct a re-examination in seven subjects
for 823 candidates, which was successfully conducted on
13.11.2024, without any cost implication to the respondents.
Despite this, Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated
01.11.2024 (Annexure-P/12) proposing blacklisting of the
petitioner. The petitioner was given less than 24 hours to
respond. The petitioner promptly submitted a detailed reply on
02.11.2024 (Annexure-P/14), explaining the factual
background, highlighting the delays by SCERT, and
demonstrating the petitioner's bona fides by having already
conducted the re-examination successfully.
However, the respondents, ignoring the reply, wrongly alleged
non-submission of the same and issued another communication
dated 11.11.2024 extending 15 days' time for response. It is
contended that this was a mere afterthought to cure the
procedural defect of having granted only 24 hours earlier. Even
then, the mandatory 30 days' termination notice, followed by 15
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
days' blacklisting notice, as required under Clause 12, was never
issued.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that without granting any further opportunity of
hearing, Respondent No.1 passed an order dated 31.12.2024
(Annexure-P/17), terminating the contract and blacklisting the
petitioner indefinitely. The said order was passed without
considering the Committee's findings or the petitioner's defence
and was therefore perverse, disproportionate, and violative of
due process. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this
Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.1292 of 2025. This Hon'ble Court,
vide judgment dated 16.04.2025, set aside the blacklisting order
and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that
the incident occurred primarily due to delay by SCERT, that the
petitioner had already rectified the lapse without demanding
additional cost, and that the impugned blacklisting was wholly
disproportionate. (Annexure-P/21)
11. Pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court,
the Education Department issued a letter dated 30.06.2025
(Annexure-P/22) scheduling a hearing on 08.07.2025. The
petitioner, in compliance, submitted a comprehensive
representation dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-P/23), reiterating
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
that the repetition of questions occurred due to circumstances
beyond its control and emphasizing that the re-examination had
already been successfully conducted. On 08.07.2025, the
hearing was held before the Secretary, Education Department,
through video conferencing, as he was not physically present in
his office (Annexure-P/24). During the said hearing, the
petitioner once again urged the authorities to consider the
findings of the six-member committee, the successful re-
examination, and the absence of any mala fide intention or
financial loss to the Department.
However, to the utter shock of the petitioner, Respondent No.1
passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1),
de-barring the petitioner up to 31.03.2026. The said order not
only ignored the observations of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC
No.1292 of 2025 but also relied upon new and extraneous
grounds that were never part of the original show cause notice.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
most respectfully submits that the impugned order dated
22.07.2025 (Annexure-P/24) issued by the Respondent No.1,
whereby the Petitioner has been blacklisted till 31.03.2026 and
the termination of the contract has been reaffirmed, is wholly
arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
order is vitiated for non-application of mind, reliance on
extraneous considerations, and gross violation of the principles
of natural justice.
13. It is submitted that despite this Hon'ble Court
having been pleased to pass a specific and reasoned order dated
16.04.2025 in CWJC No. 1292 of 2025 (Annexure-P/22),
directing the Respondents to re-consider the issue afresh in light
of the Petitioner's explanation and the admitted delay on part of
the SCERT, the Respondents have acted in complete disregard
of the said directions and have mechanically re-issued an order
of debarment, thereby rendering the entire decision-making
process illegal and void-ab-initio.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
show cause notices dated 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024
(Annexures-P/12 and P/13) merely referred to two specific
deficiencies, viz.,
(i) repetition of questions in six subjects of the
CTT-2 examination held on 26.08.2024, and
(ii) appearance of answer keys in 50 questions of
the subject "Home Science" (Class XI-XII).
However, in the impugned order, entirely new and unconnected
allegations were introduced concerning the BSTET
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Examination, delay in publishing results, and minor
typographical issues in the question papers--none of which
were ever mentioned in the show cause notice or put to the
Petitioner for rebuttal.
14. It is respectfully submitted that the law is well
settled that a person cannot be penalized on grounds not
mentioned in the show cause notice, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of
Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105, wherein it was categorically laid
down that a show cause notice must specifically mention both
the allegations and the proposed action to be taken, failing
which the entire proceedings stand vitiated for violation of
natural justice.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even after
remand by this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent authorities have
failed to appreciate that the repetition of questions had occurred
solely due to the inordinate delay and deficiencies on part of
SCERT, which furnished the question banks at the eleventh
hour, leaving no reasonable time for the Petitioner to curate or
verify the papers before uploading.
15. It is further submitted that the petitioner, in
compliance with the directions of the Respondents and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
recommendations of the six-member committee, had voluntarily
conducted a re-examination on 13.11.2024, covering 823
candidates (including 749 affected candidates), without
demanding any additional cost from the Respondents. The said
re-examination was successfully concluded and the results were
duly published, thereby curing any alleged breach. A true copy
of the communication evidencing re-examination and
compliance is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-P/18.
The learned counsel submits that Clause 12.1 of the governing
agreement (Annexure-P/8) clearly stipulates that termination
and blacklisting can be effected only after giving 30 days' prior
written notice to the vendor to remedy the alleged breach. In the
instant case, no such notice was ever issued. The impugned
order thus suffers from jurisdictional error, being passed in utter
violation of contractual provisions and statutory fairness.
It is also submitted that even under the note appended to Clause
12.1, blacklisting is to be a "natural consequence" of
termination, which presupposes that the termination itself is
validly effected after due notice. Since in the present case the
termination itself is bad in law, the consequential blacklisting
order automatically falls.
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
further submits that the six-member committee constituted by
the Respondent No.2 (BSEB) had categorically concluded that
the SCERT was equally responsible for the deficiencies noticed
during the CTT-2 examination, and had therefore recommended
only the issuance of a warning, along with the imposition of a
limited penalty to the extent of 25% of the invoice value.
Despite this clear finding, the Respondents have chosen to
ignore the committee's recommendation and have proceeded to
impose a far more severe punishment, amounting to gross
disproportion. A copy of the six-member committee report is
annexed and marked as Annexure-P/19.
It is further contended that the impugned order also misreads the
Petitioner's letter dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure-P/23) as an
admission of fault, whereas the said letter was only an appeal
for reconsideration based on the understanding that the
Respondents would withdraw the blacklisting if the Petitioner
assured non-repetition in future. This benign communication has
been deliberately misconstrued to sustain the order of
debarment.
17. Per Contra, learned counsel for the
Respondents submits that the impugned order dated 22.07.2025
(Annexure-P/1) has been passed strictly in compliance with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
order dated 16.04.2025 of this Hon'ble Court rendered in
C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of 2025, wherein the matter was remitted for
reconsideration by the competent authority after affording due
opportunity to the Petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that the
impugned order is neither arbitrary nor passed in violation of
natural justice, but is based on proper fact finding and material
evidence on record.
18. The learned counsel for the Respondents further
submits that the tender in question, Tender No. Online
Examination / Education / 2023 / 01 dated 22.09.2023, was
floated by the Education Department, Government of Bihar for
the selection of an agency to establish a system and conduct
Computer-Based Tests (CBT) for various examinations. The
Petitioner's bid was accepted and a Letter of Intent bearing Ref.
No. 4/V1.16-87/2023-2322 dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure-P/7)
was issued, followed by a formal agreement executed on
13.03.2024 determining the terms and conditions of work. The
said agreement clearly stipulated under Clause 12 the provisions
for Termination and Blacklisting, which authorize the
Department to terminate the contract and blacklist the vendor
upon occurrence of enumerated events such as serious
discrepancies, failure to provide quality services, clumsy
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
execution of work, or non-compliance with lawful directions,
subject to issuance of a written notice of 30 days. It is also
specified that blacklisting/debarment shall be a natural
consequence of termination.
19. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits
that during the conduct of the Competency Test-2 (CTT-2) for
local body teachers scheduled between 23.08.2024 and
26.08.2024, several serious discrepancies were reported by the
Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training
(SCERT) through Letter No. 4095 dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure-
A to the personal affidavit). The said communication pointed out
repetition of questions in as many as seven subjects -- Hindi,
Music, Dance, Home Science, Persian (Classes IX-X), and
Home Science and History (Classes XI-XII) -- where multiple
questions were repeated across sets, thereby compromising the
sanctity of the examination.
Apart from repetition, other grave errors were detected, such as
--
(a) absence of images in questions where they were
essential, rendering them meaningless;
(b) misprinting of percentage signs and ratio
symbols as random characters;
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
(c) incorrect alignment of bilingual questions
leading to confusion; and
(d) typographical disarray where English answer
options (A, B, C, D) were merged within Hindi text.
These errors, taken collectively, were indicative of gross
negligence and lack of quality control on part of the Petitioner
company.
In view of these lapses, the Respondents constituted a six-
member committee vide Memo No. K.V.644/2024 dated
17.09.2024 to inquire into the discrepancies. The committee,
after detailed scrutiny, submitted its report on 08.10.2024,
concluding that the Petitioner company was prima facie
responsible for the errors and had itself admitted fault through
its email dated 21.09.2024 (01:39 PM), wherein it accepted that
repetition of questions had occurred due to oversight during data
processing. Copies of the report and the said email were
annexed as Annexures-B and C to the personal affidavit of the
Secretary, Education Department.
20. Learned counsel for the Respondents points out
that the committee's findings were not based merely on
conjecture but on specific data samples and technical validation,
which revealed multiple instances of identical question IDs
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
recurring in different sets prepared by the Petitioner. The
committee, therefore, recorded a clear finding of "serious
discrepancies attributable to vendor's lapse." It is further
submitted that in consequence of the committee's report, show
cause notices were duly issued to the Petitioner vide Letter No.
2355 dated 01.11.2024 and Letter No. 714 dated 26.10.2024,
seeking specific explanations regarding the deficiencies noticed.
The Petitioner submitted its reply, which was duly considered
along with the opinions obtained from SCERT and Bihar School
Examination Board (BSEB).
Both SCERT and BSEB, after examining the Petitioner's
response, opined unequivocally -- through Letter No. 5843
dated 03.12.2024 and Letter No. K.V.784/2024 dated
16.12.2024 (Annexure-D series) -- that the Petitioner was
indeed at fault and primarily responsible for the flawed conduct
of the examination. These communications formed the
substantive basis for the Department's subsequent decision-
making process.
21. Consequently, the earlier order bearing Memo
No. 2723 dated 31.12.2024 was passed, which, however, came
to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of
2025, directing the Respondents to reconsider the issue afresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to
this direction, a fresh show cause notice dated 30.06.2025 was
issued to the Petitioner (Annexure-P/22), and the Petitioner
again submitted its written explanation dated 02.07.2025
(Annexure-P/23) as well as a representation dated 08.07.2025,
both of which were duly examined.
22. The learned counsel for the Respondents
emphasizes that even in the representation dated 08.07.2025, the
Petitioner categorically admitted its lapse, stating inter alia that
"It was only in the last exam (CTT-2) where an issue of question
repetition occurred due to lack of time and unintentional
manual error..." and further undertook "to ensure that such
mistakes are never repeated." This admission clearly
demonstrates that the Petitioner's fault was neither disputed nor
denied, and hence, the Respondents acted within their
contractual and administrative competence.
It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 22.07.2025
(Memo No. 391) was thus passed after full compliance with the
directions of this Hon'ble Court, after due notice, opportunity of
hearing, and consideration of all relevant records and
representations. The impugned order is a reasoned and speaking
order, detailing the sequence of events, the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
deficiencies, and the basis for the decision to blacklist the
Petitioner till 31.03.2026.
23. Learned counsel for the Respondents contends
that the mistakes committed by the Petitioner were not minor or
technical in nature but grave operational failures that directly
affected the integrity of a large-scale State-level examination,
causing cancellation and re-conduct of seven subject papers,
leading to administrative delay and financial loss. Therefore,
invocation of Clause 12 of the Agreement and the consequential
blacklisting were lawful, justified, and proportionate to the
nature of default.
It is further contended that the principle of proportionality has
been duly observed, inasmuch as the Petitioner has been
blacklisted only till 31.03.2026, i.e., for a limited period, and
not permanently. The Department consciously refrained from
imposing any monetary penalty in addition to the blacklisting,
thereby exercising measured discretion in conformity with law.
24. The learned counsel for the Respondents finally
submits that the Petitioner cannot seek relief in equity when it
has admitted fault on multiple occasions and when its lapses
have been established by independent bodies like SCERT,
BSEB, and a duly constituted committee. The impugned order
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
thus does not suffer from any legal infirmity, arbitrariness, or
procedural violation, and the writ petition, being devoid of
merit, deserves to be dismissed in limine.
ISSUES IN QUESTION:
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.07.2025
blacklisting the petitioner till 31.03.2026 was passed in violation
of the principles of natural justice or without affording due
opportunity of hearing and does it suffers from arbitrariness,
mala fides, or absence of material evidence justifying the action
of blacklisting?
2. Whether the lapses committed by the petitioner
in the conduct of the Competency Test-2 examination were
minor and technical in nature or amounted to serious operational
failures adversely affecting the examination process?
3. Whether the petitioner's express admission of
mistake in its email dated 21.09.2024 and letter dated
08.07.2025 establishes acknowledgment of fault, thereby
justifying the respondent's decision to take disciplinary action?
4. Whether the action of blacklisting the petitioner
till 31.03.2026 is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of
the default, and whether it violates the doctrine of
proportionality?
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
5. Whether the impugned order was passed in
accordance with Clause 12 of the Agreement dated 13.03.2024
and in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of 2025?
FINDINGS:
Issue 1: Whether the impugned order dated 22.07.2025
blacklisting the petitioner till 31.03.2026 was passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice or without
affording due opportunity of hearing and does it suffers
from arbitrariness, mala fides, or absence of material
evidence justifying the action of blacklisting?
The contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has
been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or
without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing is wholly
unfounded. The records of the case reveal that a show cause
notice dated 30.06.2025 was duly issued to the petitioner prior
to the passing of the impugned order, calling upon it to furnish
its explanation regarding the discrepancies noticed in the
conduct of the Competency Test-2 examination. The petitioner
duly submitted its written reply dated 02.07.2025 and
subsequently made a representation dated 08.07.2025, both of
which were duly considered by the competent authority before
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
arriving at the final decision.
It is further evident from the materials placed on record that the
petitioner had also, in its email communication dated
21.09.2024, categorically admitted its fault with respect to the
repetition of questions in multiple subjects during the said
examination. The admission of such lapse was reiterated in its
representation dated 08.07.2025, wherein the petitioner accepted
that the error had occurred "due to lack of time and
unintentional manual error" and assured that necessary
corrective measures would be taken in future. Such
unambiguous admission of fault clearly negates any suggestion
of arbitrariness or absence of material evidence.
Moreover, the decision to blacklist the petitioner was not taken
in isolation but was preceded by a detailed fact-finding process.
A six-member committee, constituted vide memo no.
K.V.644/2024 dated 17.09.2024, conducted an inquiry,
examined the report submitted by the petitioner, and held the
agency responsible for grievous discrepancies which resulted in
cancellation and re-conduct of examinations in seven subjects.
The opinions furnished by the SCERT vide letter no. 5843 dated
03.12.2024 and by the BSEB vide letter no. K.V.784-2024 dated
16.12.2024 also concluded that the petitioner was at fault. Thus,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
the impugned order was passed only after comprehensive
consideration of the inquiry report, the petitioner's replies, and
expert opinions from the statutory bodies.
In view of these facts, it is clear that the principles of natural
justice were duly complied with and the petitioner was afforded
adequate opportunity to present its case. There is no material on
record to substantiate any allegation of mala fides or
arbitrariness. The impugned order is a reasoned administrative
decision, based on documentary evidence, factual findings, and
admitted lapses on the part of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned order dated
22.07.2025 does not suffer from violation of natural justice,
arbitrariness, or lack of material evidence, and has been passed
in due compliance with law and after observance of fair
procedure.
Issue 2: Whether the lapses committed by the petitioner in
the conduct of the Competency Test-2 examination were
minor and technical in nature or amounted to serious
operational failures adversely affecting the examination
process?
Upon careful examination of the records and materials placed
before this Hon'ble Court, it is evident that the lapses
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
committed by the petitioner in the conduct of the Competency
Test-2 (CTT-2) examination cannot, by any stretch of reasoning,
be termed as minor, technical, or inadvertent. On the contrary,
the evidence demonstrates that the irregularities were serious
operational failures that struck at the very foundation of the
examination system, thereby undermining its fairness,
reliability, and integrity.
The letter no. 4095 dated 12.09.2024 issued by the Director,
State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT)
brought to the notice of the Bihar School Examination Board
(BSEB) multiple grave discrepancies in the examination
conducted by the petitioner. It was found that questions were
repeated in several subjects -- including Hindi, Persian, Music,
Dance, Home Science, and History -- at both Class 9-10 and
Class 11-12 levels. In addition to the repetition of questions,
there were missing images, incorrect symbols in mathematical
content, erroneous use of characters in place of ratios and
percentages, and improper alignment of bilingual question
papers.
These defects were not confined to isolated instances but were
systemic and widespread across multiple subjects. As a result,
the examination of seven subjects had to be cancelled and fresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
examinations were ordered, causing substantial administrative
inconvenience, financial burden, and delay in the overall
assessment process. Such large-scale disruption cannot be
characterized as a mere technical defect or clerical oversight.
The matter was thoroughly examined by a six-member inquiry
committee constituted under memo no. K.V.644/2024 dated
17.09.2024, which held its meeting on 04.10.2024 and
submitted its report on 08.10.2024. The committee, after
analyzing the materials and the petitioner's own report, recorded
categorical findings that the petitioner had failed to ensure
quality control and adequate scrutiny of the question bank and
the computer-based test system. The committee further noted
that the petitioner, through its email dated 21.09.2024, admitted
its fault in respect of question repetition and other discrepancies.
The subsequent opinions of both SCERT (letter no. 5843 dated
03.12.2024) and BSEB (letter no. K.V.784-2024 dated
16.12.2024) confirmed the committee's conclusion that the
lapses were serious and attributable solely to the petitioner's
negligence and inadequate supervision.
Given these findings, the lapses committed by the petitioner
were not minor deviations but amounted to serious operational
failures, leading to cancellation and rescheduling of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
examinations -- an eventuality that gravely affected thousands
of candidates and tarnished the credibility of the examination
process. The magnitude of the default clearly justified
disciplinary action by the respondent authority in exercise of its
contractual and administrative powers.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the failures of the petitioner
were grave, systemic, and detrimental to the sanctity of the
examination process, and therefore cannot be categorized as
minor or technical lapses. The respondent's action in treating
these lapses as serious operational failures stands fully justified.
Issue 3. Whether the petitioner's express admission of
mistake in its email dated 21.09.2024 and letter dated
08.07.2025 establishes acknowledgment of fault, thereby
justifying the respondent's decision to take disciplinary
action?
Upon consideration of the materials available on record, this
Hon'ble Court finds that the petitioner's categorical admission
of error in its own communications -- namely, the email dated
21.09.2024 and the letter dated 08.07.2025 -- constitutes an
unequivocal acknowledgment of fault, which fully justifies the
respondent's decision to initiate and conclude disciplinary
proceedings culminating in the order of blacklisting.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
The record reveals that after the conduct of the Competency
Test-2 (CTT-2) examination, serious discrepancies were
reported, leading to the constitution of a six-member inquiry
committee vide memo no. K.V.644/2024 dated 17.09.2024. In
the course of this inquiry, the petitioner, through its email
communication dated 21.09.2024 (01:39 PM), admitted to the
occurrence of repeated questions across several subjects,
attributing it to "unintentional manual error" and lack of
adequate time. The said email was placed before the committee,
which took specific note of this admission while recording its
findings.
The petitioner, in its subsequent representation dated
08.07.2025, reiterated this admission in clear terms,
acknowledging that "it was only in the last exam (CTT-2)
where an issue of question repetition occurred due to lack of
time and some unintentional manual error" and further
assuring that "We'd take all the necessary steps to ensure such
mistakes are never repeated." These statements, emanating
directly from the petitioner, leave no room for ambiguity or
denial of responsibility.
Such voluntary and repeated acknowledgment of fault, made
both contemporaneously during inquiry proceedings and later in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
response to the show cause notice, demonstrates the petitioner's
acceptance of the lapses and their causal connection to the
irregularities in the examination process. In law, an admission
made by a party, especially when made voluntarily and without
coercion, constitutes the best form of evidence against the
maker thereof and requires no further corroboration unless
successfully retracted with plausible justification, which is
conspicuously absent in the present case.
The respondent authority, while exercising its contractual and
administrative powers under Clause 12 of the Agreement dated
13.03.2024, was therefore fully justified in treating the
petitioner's admission as conclusive proof of operational failure
and in taking consequential disciplinary action. The impugned
order of blacklisting was passed not on conjecture or suspicion,
but on self-admitted lapses duly supported by documentary
evidence, inquiry reports, and expert opinions from both SCERT
and BSEB.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the petitioner's
express admission of mistake in its email dated 21.09.2024 and
letter dated 08.07.2025 amounts to acknowledgment of fault in
unequivocal terms, and such acknowledgment serves as a valid
and sufficient basis for the respondent to impose disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
action. The respondent's decision, therefore, stands on firm legal
and factual foundation and cannot be said to be arbitrary or
unjustified in any manner.
Issue 4: Whether the action of blacklisting the petitioner till
31.03.2026 is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of
the default, and whether it violates the doctrine of
proportionality?
Having examined the facts, records, and sequence of events
leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 22.07.2025,
this Hon'ble Court finds no merit in the petitioner's contention
that the action of blacklisting till 31.03.2026 is disproportionate
or violative of the doctrine of proportionality. On the contrary,
the record reflects that the respondent authority has acted with
due care, reasonableness, and in strict conformity with both
contractual provisions and judicial directions.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the initial order of
blacklisting, passed vide memo no. 2723 dated 31.12.2024, had
imposed blacklisting of the petitioner for an indefinite period.
The said order was subsequently set aside by this Hon'ble Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of 2025, with a direction to the competent
authority to reconsider the matter after granting proper
opportunity of hearing and after assigning reasons supported by
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
relevant material. Pursuant thereto, the Education Department
reconsidered the entire matter, issued a fresh show cause notice
dated 30.06.2025, obtained the petitioner's reply dated
02.07.2025 and representation dated 08.07.2025, and thereafter
passed the impugned order on 22.07.2025, restricting the period
of blacklisting only till 31.03.2026.
This deliberate reduction of the blacklisting duration--from an
indefinite period to a time-bound measure--demonstrates that
the authority has exercised its discretion judiciously, keeping in
view the principle of proportionality. The penalty now imposed
is neither excessive nor arbitrary; rather, it is commensurate
with the gravity of the proven misconduct.
The admitted lapses on the part of the petitioner in the conduct
of Competency Test-2 (CTT-2) resulted in large-scale
discrepancies, cancellation of examinations in seven subjects,
and consequential re-examination, thereby affecting thousands
of candidates and causing administrative dislocation. Such
lapses go to the root of the examination process, striking
directly at its credibility and fairness. In this backdrop,
disciplinary action, including temporary blacklisting, is both
justified and necessary to uphold institutional integrity and
public interest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
The doctrine of proportionality requires that the administrative
action must balance the gravity of the offence with the severity
of the penalty. Here, the respondent's decision satisfies that test
-- the duration of blacklisting is limited, reasonable, and
reviewable after a definite period. It serves as a deterrent against
negligence while affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to
rehabilitate and resume business after the prescribed term.
Further, the decision is not punitive in isolation but based on
self-admitted lapses, corroborated by inquiry findings, and
expert opinions of SCERT and BSEB holding the petitioner
responsible. Hence, the respondent's action is grounded in
evidence and cannot be termed arbitrary or disproportionate.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the blacklisting of the
petitioner till 31.03.2026 is a measured, proportionate, and
legally sustainable action, duly aligned with the doctrine of
proportionality. The respondent has exercised its authority in a
fair, reasonable, and balanced manner, and therefore, the
impugned order does not warrant any interference.
Issue 5: Whether the impugned order was passed in
accordance with Clause 12 of the Agreement dated
13.03.2024 and in compliance with the directions issued by
this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of 2025?
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Upon a thorough examination of the contractual provisions, the
sequence of proceedings, and the materials placed on record,
this Hon'ble Court finds that the impugned order dated
22.07.2025 was passed strictly in conformity with Clause 12 of
the Agreement dated 13.03.2024 and in faithful compliance with
the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.
1292 of 2025.
Clause 12 of the Agreement between the petitioner and the
Education Department specifically empowers the Department to
terminate the agreement and blacklist or debar the vendor in the
event of certain defaults, including (a) material breach of
contractual obligations, (e) failure to provide quality services,
(f) serious discrepancy or delay in performance impacting
departmental functioning, and (h) failure to abide by lawful
directions of the Department. The clause further mandates that,
before imposing blacklisting, the Department shall issue a
notice giving 15 days' time to the vendor to explain its position.
In the present case, the records demonstrate scrupulous
adherence to these requirements. A show cause notice dated
30.06.2025 was duly served upon the petitioner, providing
adequate opportunity to submit its explanation regarding the
grave lapses that occurred during the conduct of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
Competency Test-2. The petitioner availed such opportunity by
submitting a written reply dated 02.07.2025 and a representation
dated 08.07.2025, both of which were considered in detail by
the competent authority prior to the issuance of the impugned
order.
The impugned order itself expressly records that it has been
passed pursuant to and in continuation of the directions issued
by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of 2025, wherein
the earlier order of blacklisting dated 31.12.2024 was set aside
with liberty to the authority to proceed afresh after due notice
and hearing. The subsequent proceedings undertaken by the
Department -- including issuance of a fresh show cause notice,
consideration of the petitioner's reply, and reduction of the
blacklisting period to 31.03.2026 -- clearly reflect compliance
with both the contractual safeguards and judicial directions.
Furthermore, the factual foundation for invoking Clause 12
stands well-established. The petitioner's admitted lapses in the
conduct of the CTT-2 examination, as acknowledged in its
email dated 21.09.2024 and letter dated 08.07.2025, coupled
with the findings of the six-member inquiry committee and
corroborative opinions from SCERT and BSEB, conclusively
establish breach of contractual obligations, poor quality of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
service, and serious discrepancies affecting the Department's
functioning -- all of which squarely fall within the
contingencies contemplated under Clause 12.
Thus, both procedurally and substantively, the impugned order
conforms to the terms of the agreement and to the judicial
mandate previously issued. The action of the respondent cannot,
therefore, be said to be beyond the scope of its contractual
authority or in derogation of the directions of this Hon'ble
Court.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned order dated
22.07.2025 has been validly passed under Clause 12 of the
Agreement dated 13.03.2024 and is in complete compliance
with the order and observations made in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of
2025. The action is thus legally sound, procedurally fair, and
immune from challenge on the ground of non-compliance.
25. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the
pleadings, records, and contractual framework, this Hon'ble
Court finds no illegality, procedural infirmity, or arbitrariness in
the impugned order dated 22.07.2025. The respondent
authorities acted strictly within the ambit of Clause 12 of the
Agreement dated 13.03.2024, and in faithful compliance with
the directions issued in C.W.J.C. No. 1292 of 2025, by affording
Patna High Court CWJC No.13538 of 2025 dt.14-10-2025
due notice, opportunity of hearing, and passing a reasoned order
based on verified material and the petitioner's own admission of
fault. The blacklisting period, now rationalized till 31.03.2026,
cannot be termed disproportionate considering the gravity of the
lapses that jeopardized the integrity of the Competency Test-2
examination. Consequently, the action of the respondent is
found to be just, fair, and in accordance with law, warranting no
interference by this Hon'ble Court.
26. Accordingly, this Hon'ble Court is of the
considered opinion that the writ petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed. There shall be no order to costs.
(P. B. Bajanthri, CJ)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 08.10.2025
Uploading Date 14.10.2025
Transmission Date NA
