Patna, Jan. 19: The state topper in the intermediate science examination in 2009, Sudhansu Shekhar, was dislodged from first position following a re-evaluation of his papers by the board without any request from him. More than a year on, Patna High Court today reinstated him in the top spot.

Bihar State Examination Board that conducts the examination had decreased Sudhansu’s marks.

Sudhanshu, then a student of Ram Balak Rai College, Hajipur, had topped the examination in 2009 securing 423 marks. But when the merit list was published, Sudhanshu’s total read 401, 22 less than what he had achieved. The marks reduced after the board took a decision to re-evaluate Sudhanshu’s answer sheets.

The petitioner’s counsel, Abhinav Srivastava, contended that besides Shekhar, the marks of five other students were also reduced by the board in the same fashion. He said Sudhanshu was shocked after he saw his revised marks in the merit list, as he had not applied for any re-evaluation.

“Shekhar had jotted down the marks from the tabulation register of the college. But his total in the merit list published later was only 401. It projected Kunal Sharma with 422 marks as the state topper,” Srivastava said.

The board’s secretary A.P. Sinha, who was present in the court after being summoned yesterday, apologised for the mistake and assured that such an error would not be repeated.

Board’s counsel Lalit Kishore assured the bench comprising Justice T. Meena Kumari and Justice Mihir Kumar Jha that the original marks secured by Sudhanshu and five others would be restored within a fortnight and the same would be published in the newspapers.

Accepting the submission of the board, the court posted the matter for hearing after two weeks. It also directed the board to file a compliance report within 15 days.

The court expressed anguish over the manner in which the board dealt with students’ future.

Srivastava submitted according to rule 19 of chapter 5 of the board’s rules, there is a provision that an answer sheet could be re-evaluated only on a formal request of the student but that was not the case here.

In the absence of any provision under the board’s rules, the entire action on the part of the board in re-evaluating and subsequently reducing the marks obtained by the petitioner is a big mistake. It also clearly indicates the abuse of power by the secretary and the chairman, the counsel of the petitioner submitted.

The court, during the hearing, took strong exception to the board’s approach and said it would direct the state government to take action against the chairman and the secretary and order a probe if the mistake was not rectified.