Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a student who scores higher marks upon re-evaluation cannot be denied a merit certificate merely due to administrative delay. The Court made this observation while deciding a petition filed by a Class 10 student seeking revision of the merit list after her marks increased post re-evaluation. The Court remarked, “Rather than rewarding her excellence, the respondent-Board has forced her to knock the doors of justice which is not appreciated.”
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a 15-year-old student, appeared in the Class 10 board examinations conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in March 2024. Initially, she was awarded 686 out of 700 marks. Unsatisfied with her score, she applied for re-evaluation, following which her marks increased to 693. Despite this improvement, the merit certificate issued earlier, based on the old marks, was not revised, which led her to approach the High Court.
She contended that she was denied her rightful place in the merit list, which not only deprived her of recognition but also made her ineligible for scholarships and other academic benefits. The petitioner asserted that the failure of the Board to re-issue the merit certificate was arbitrary and caused her undue harassment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the merit certificate continued to reflect the earlier marks despite her post re-evaluation score making her eligible for a top-ten merit position. It was contended that the delay in submitting the original mark-sheet, which the school had retained, was not the petitioner’s fault and thus she should not be penalized for it.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court expressed deep concern over the manner in which the Himachal Pradesh Board attempted to deflect responsibility for not revising the merit certificate. The Board had contended that the student’s revised marks could not be considered for the merit list because the original marksheet had not been submitted within the stipulated deadline, and the delay was attributed to the school authorities. The Court rejected this explanation outright. It held that once the result of re-evaluation had led to an increase in marks, and the student had clearly ranked among the top ten most meritorious candidates, it was the Board’s statutory and administrative responsibility to suo motu issue a revised merit certificate. The Court emphasized that the Board, being the examining authority, cannot escape its duty by shifting the burden onto the school or its officials.
In its strong remarks, the Court observed, “This Court fails to understand as to how respondent No.1 could have shirked off its responsibility so easily… As it is the respondent-Board that conducts the examination and declares the result, obviously the onus is upon it to scrutinize who are the top ten most meritorious candidates… This onus cannot be shifted to other respondents like the Head Master or the Head Mistress of the School.”
The Court further noted that denying a student the recognition she rightfully earned, especially when her academic excellence was evident after the re-evaluation, amounted to arbitrary action and procedural injustice. It highlighted the emotional and practical consequences of such denial, particularly for a minor girl student who would miss out on academic benefits like scholarships. The Court condemned the conduct of the Board, stating, “The meritorious students do not deserve such treatment. Rather than rewarding her excellence, the respondent-Board has forced her to knock the doors of justice which is not appreciated".
Finally, it held that administrative hurdles or internal miscommunication cannot override a student’s right to fair recognition, especially when merit and re-evaluation outcomes are on record. The Court viewed this as a classic case where a bureaucratic approach defeated the very purpose of academic excellence.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the respondent-Board to revise the merit list and include the petitioner among the top ten candidates. The Court also ordered that all consequential benefits, including eligibility for scholarships, be extended to her. However, it clarified that already declared top-ten candidates shall not be disturbed. In view of the negligent conduct of the Board, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the respondent, payable to the petitioner within four weeks.
Case Title: Yashaswini Aggarwal Vs. Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education & Others
Case No.: CWP No.4452 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Hirdaya Ram, Suresh Singh Saini
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Chander Shekhar, Rahul Thakur
Picture Source :
