The National Examination Board (NEB) published this year’s grade 12 results within 40 days of the examinations, and the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) results in just 29 days.

The government and the board have been praised for reducing the publication timeline, which in previous years ranged from 70 to 90 days. However, the faster turnaround has also raised serious concerns about the credibility of the answer sheet evaluation process.

Last week, dissatisfied grade 12 students staged protests at Maitighar Mandala in Kathmandu, demanding the resignation of Minister for Education and Sports, Sasmit Pokharel.

According to Controller of Examinations Krishna Prasad Sharma, this year 32,800 grade 12 students dissatisfied with their marks have applied for retotalling, which involves checking whether marks awarded on answer sheets were added correctly.

The office noted that 32,200 SEE students had applied for retotalling, and the results of 1,879 students were subsequently revised. That means 5.81 percent of applicants had changes to their final grades. Last year, 890 of the 26,300 applicants, or 3.32 percent, had their grades revised.

Sharma said fewer grade 12 students had sought retotalling this year than last year, when 42,200 applications were received, and around 3 percent resulted in changes. The final error rate for this year’s grade 12 examinations will only be known after the current retotalling process is completed.

Following the protests, Minister Pokharel formed a probe committee comprising under-secretaries from the ministry and the Curriculum Development Centre. According to the ministry, the committee will examine sample answer sheets and verify grading and data-entry accuracy before submitting its report.

Responding to criticism that the accelerated publication schedule increased clerical errors, Pokharel said the results were released earlier by deploying additional manpower and reducing bureaucratic delays rather than compromising the evaluation process.

The board introduced an online retotalling system last year while also increasing the application fee. Students now pay Rs500 per subject for SEE retotalling and Rs1,000 per subject for grade 12.

Students and parents have criticised the higher fees as excessive, arguing that candidates should not have to pay to correct mistakes made during the board's own marking process.

On social media, Gaurav Raj Bista urged the education minister to revise the policy. Responding to the minister’s Facebook post, he wrote: “Human errors can occur during answer sheet evaluation, but if a student’s marks change during retotalling, the application fee must be refunded.”

Last year’s grade 12 retotalling process uncovered major errors, including mistakes in mark tabulation, ledger entries and data entry into the board's computer system.

Similar administrative lapses have emerged in this year’s SEE results. SEE Controller of Examinations Tuk Raj Adhikari confirmed cases in which a student who scored 70 marks had only seven marks entered into the system. Other errors included incorrect addition of marks by examiners and complete omissions during data entry.

The board also reported that around 1,000 answer sheets went missing during this year’s evaluation process, although some were later recovered after being left behind at various marking centres.

To speed up publication of the SEE results, answer sheets were assessed at 52 marking centres across the country. Board officials acknowledged that decentralising the evaluation process resulted in serious lapses, including bundles of answer sheets being misplaced by schools serving as marking centres.

Officials also said mistakes in symbol numbers, names and dates of birth made by students, schools or teachers continue to cause missing-result cases every year, often affecting candidates who had completed their examinations properly.

Demands for quality over speed

Another social media user, Himanshu Paudel, urged the education minister to prioritise the quality of evaluation over the speed of publishing results.

“Many students have received marks far lower than expected, raising questions about the evaluation process. A student's future cannot be determined solely by a hurried statistic or pass rate. A minor grading error can affect the future, confidence and opportunities of thousands of students,” he wrote, addressing the minister. “Publishing results quickly is not an achievement. What matters is a fair, accurate and reliable evaluation.”

Despite the criticism, Controller of Examinations Krishna Prasad Sharma downplayed the concerns, claiming that the number of grade 12 students applying for retotalling this year is lower than last year.

“We shifted to an online application system last year and increased the fee to Rs1,000. Before that, students had to visit the board's office in person and pay Rs500,” Sharma said. He added that the convenience of the online system has naturally encouraged more students to seek a review. He also said the higher fee was introduced to improve remuneration for examiners. Teachers are now paid Rs45 per answer script, up from Rs40.

Following the formation of the new government under Prime Minister Balendra Shah on March 27, the board was instructed to publish examination results within 30 to 45 days. To meet the deadline, the number of grade 12 evaluation centres was increased from 28 to 42.

However, board officials acknowledged that the expanded pool of examiners did not receive adequate training, contributing to a rise in evaluation errors. They also said the failure to maintain strict confidentiality over which teachers assessed individual SEE answer sheets has fuelled suspicion and eroded public confidence.

In previous years, answer sheets were coded and distributed to different districts, with evaluations beginning only after expert teachers had undergone comprehensive orientation. This year, the orientation was reduced to a brief online session.

Defending the board’s decision to expedite the publication of results, NEB member Professor Prakash Man Shrestha said a shorter processing time does not, in itself, undermine the credibility of the examination system.

“Human error occurs every year. We should only question the integrity of the system if retotalling reveals an unprecedented or unusually high level of discrepancies. Parents and students assume that speed means carelessness, but the retotalling results will provide a clearer picture,” Shrestha said.

However, he acknowledged that the policy of retaining the retotalling fee even when errors are corrected deserves reconsideration. Under the current rules, students who remain dissatisfied after retotalling must pay an additional fee to inspect their answer sheets in person or request a formal re-evaluation.