Kerala High Court
Hari Krishnan vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.Nos.712 & 1128 of 2025 1
2025:KER:66709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 712 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2025 IN W.P.(C)
NO.10389 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
THE CBSE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,
SHIKSHAKENDRA 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
PREETHIVIHAAR, DELHI, PIN - 110092
BY ADV SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN W.P.(C):
1 HARI KRISHNAN,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, SREEHARI,
KALATHIPARAMBIL LANE, ERNAKULAM,
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MINOR SON DHRUV KRISHNA MENON
AGED 17 YEARS, PIN - 682016
2 THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY,C WING,SHASTRI BHAWAN,
DR.RAJENDRAPRASAD ROAD,RAJPATH AREA ,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NEW DELHI 110001
3 SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
127-C SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRAPRASAAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
W.A.Nos.712 & 1128 of 2025 2
2025:KER:66709
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.I.DAVIS
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC
SHRI.RAJAN VELLOTH
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.08.2025 ALONG
WITH WA.1128/2025, THE COURT ON 10.9.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.712 & 1128 of 2025 3
2025:KER:66709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 1128 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2025 IN W.P.(C)
NO.10389 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
HARI KRISHNAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.LATE.KRISHNANKUTTY, SREEHARI,
KALATHIPARAMBIL LANE,ERNAKULAM FOR AND ON BEHALF
OF MINOR SON DHRUV KRISHNA MENON AGED 17 YEARS,
PIN - 682016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.I.DAVIS
SHRI.RAJAN VELLOTH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON ,
SHIKSHAKENDRA 2 ,COMMUNITY CENTRE ,
PREET VIHAAR, PIN - 110092
2 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY FOR SCHOOL
EDUCATION AND LITERACY, C WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN,
W.A.Nos.712 & 1128 of 2025 4
2025:KER:66709
DR. RAJENDRAPRASAD ROAD,
RAJPATH AREA , CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
127-C SHASTRI BHAVAN,
DR.RAJENDRAPRASAAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC
SHRI.NIRMAL S. SC, CBSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.08.2025 ALONG
WITH W.A.712 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 10.9.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.712 & 1128 of 2025 5
2025:KER:66709
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.712/2025, 1128/2025]
Muralee Krishna, J.
These intra-Court appeals are filed by the petitioner and the
1st respondent, respectively, in W.P.(C)No.10389 of 2023, under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the
judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge
in that writ petition. For convenience of reference, the parties are
hereinafter referred to in this judgment in their status as they
were in the writ petition, unless otherwise stated.
2. According to the petitioner, his son, who is a minor
student aged 17 years, completed his schooling at Anand Sagar
Public School in Sangli District in Maharashtra, and had appeared
in the Class XII Examination conducted by the Central Board of
Secondary Education ('CBSE' in short) for the Academic Session
2021-2022. When the results were announced, the marks awarded
to him were unduly low, which disqualified him from getting
admission in the institutions under the Indian Maritime University,
2022, and also admissions through JEE. Petitioner claims that the
reason for his son's marks being low is partly clear from CBSE's
2025:KER:66709
press release on 22.07.2022 which begins by highlighting a
compassionate ground that the predominant majority of students
had not been able to perform to their full potential in Term I
exams, and therefore, CBSE introduced a change in weightage for
the Class XII exam conducted during 2021-22, as a
compassionate measure to help one category of candidates,
namely the low performing candidates. According to the
petitioner, the modification effected by CBSE after completion of
examinations, of the earlier announced 50%-50% weightage
formula to 30-70, has resulted in the reduction of the overall
marks of the petitioner's son from 74.14% to 71.2%. As per the
New weightage formula, his average in Physics, Chemistry and
Maths (PCM) gets reduced from 64.48% to 58%, whereby his son
was disqualified from admissions to institutions under the Indian
Maritime University, which require a minimum PCM average of
60% in Class XII. The Petitioner's son had the legitimate
expectation not to have the rules of the game changed or not have
a reduction of his marks after the examination. The marks secured
by the petitioner's son as awarded to him by examiners, based on
how they assessed his answer sheets, were overall 74.14% with
2025:KER:66709
a PCM average of 64.48%, which he would have received under
the original 50:50 scheme; but since CBSE has changed the marks
of some other children on compassionate grounds using a 30:70
formula, then the relative merit of the petitioner's son, as per
marks secured, should have been maintained and protected when
changing the marks of the other low-performing candidates.
Indian Maritime University (IMU) requires a minimum PCM
Average of 60%. Since the National Testing Agency (NTA) has
reintroduced the 75% criterion for admissions through JEE, the
petitioner's son would not be eligible for admissions. He, despite
having registered for JEE, did not write Session 1 on January 23
and lost his opportunity. Though the petitioner approached the
respondents several times pointing out the grievance, all went in
vein. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;
"(i) Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to reissue,
preferably before 30 April 2023, and certainly prior to the
declaration of the CBSE results of 2023 Board Exams, to the
petitioner's son's a composite mark sheet for all his 5
subjects, for the Academic Year 2021-2022, amending the
marks of the petitioner's son as necessary, so that his
2025:KER:66709
relative positional grade is restored, and all students who
had had positional grades lower than his, purely on the basis
of raw marks secured.
(ii) Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondent 3, to consider reducing
the "PCM marks in Class XII" criterion, for regular
Candidates who passed Class XII in 2022 (only) from CBSE
(only) and seeking admission through IMU CET in 2023 and
future years, by 5% (thus, reduction from 60% to 55% for
open category candidates).
(iii) Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the respondent 3, to consider reducing
the "marks in Class XII" criterion, for regular Candidates
who passed Class XII in 2022 (only) from CBSE (only) and
seeking admission through JEE in 2023 and 2024, by 5%
(thus, reduction from 75% to 70% for open category
candidates).
(iv) To call for Records from Respondent 1, regarding the
total number of individuals surveyed for obtaining the
feedback (on performance in exams) cited on Page 3 of the
CBSE Press Release of 22 July, 2022, details as to the
number of board-exam-candidates involved among the
individuals surveyed, and the method employed to choose
board-exam-candidates from whom feedback was taken.
(v) To call for Records from Respondent 1, regarding the
number of candidates who had secured higher marks (as
assessed by examiners, and before the application of 30:70
weightage) in Term-I than they had secured in Term-II, in
2025:KER:66709
at least one subject, during Academic Year 2021-22,
separately for Class X and Class XII.
(vi) To call for records from Respondent 1, regarding the
number of candidates whose sum total of theory marks
secured in Terms I and II (sum of raw marks assessed by
examiners from answer books), is higher, in at least one
subject, than the theory marks printed on the composite
marksheets issued to them in July 2022, in that subject,
during Academic Year 2021-22, separately for Class X and
Class XII".
3. In the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for
the 1st respondent filed a statement dated 11.04.2023 opposing
the reliefs, and producing therewith Ext.R1(a) document. Again,
the learned Standing Counsel filed another statement dated
12.03.2025, incorporating some additional pleadings to oppose
the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2025. Paragraph
21 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
"21. However, taking into consideration the fact that the
CBSE has taken the decision on the basis of representations
from various quarters and after receiving feedback and
taking into consideration the fact that results are already
2025:KER:66709
declared, it will not be proper to unsettle the position now.
But, that should not affect the academic prospectus of the
petitioner's son, who has done remarkably well in Term-I
Examination.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is disposed of directing the respondents to declare the result
of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P2 Circular dated
05.07.2021 providing for the Special Scheme of Assessment
which mandates equal weightage to Theory papers for
Term-I and Term-II while computing the result. The
respondents shall calculate and declare the result of the
petitioner as per the formula as declared in the original
Scheme dated 05.07.2021. The revised results / mark sheet
thus prepared shall be uploaded as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of two weeks, on the
digilocker for ensuring access to the petitioner. It is made
clear that this writ petition has been partly allowed in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not
be operated as a precedent."
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.712 of 2025, who is the 1st respondent in the writ petition
and the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1128 of 2025,
who is the petitioner in the writ petition. In addition to oral
arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed notes of
argument.
6. The petitioner's son completed his Class XII CBSE
2025:KER:66709
Board Examination during the Academic Session 2021-2022. It
was the period of the pandemic, COVID-19. Therefore, the CBSE
came up with a Special Scheme of Assessment for Classes X and
XII Board Examination for the session 2021-22, as per Ext.P2
Circular dated 05.07.2021. By that Circular, it was decided to
conduct the examinations in two terms with 50% syllabus in each
term. Four different scenarios were detailed in the scheme, and
the consequent mode/manner and weightage of Term-I and Term-
II examinations were notified. Subsequently, CBSE issued Ext.P3
Circular dated 14.10.2021, wherein it was stated that the two
examinations for Classes X and XII will be conducted as per the
details provided therein. The Term-I examinations will be
conducted in the month of November-December 2021, which will
be an objective-type examination having a duration of 90 minutes.
The Term-II examinations will be conducted in the month of
March-April,2022, which will be a subjective/objective type
examination as per the condition of COVID-19 in the country.
Subsequently, CBSE issued Ext.P4 Circular dated 19.03.2021
stating that the weightage of Term-I and Term-II will be decided
at the time of declaration of Term-II result, and accordingly, the
2025:KER:66709
final performance will be calculated. In Ext.P4, it was further
stated that in all cases wherever problems have been reported in
the question papers or marking schemes, due care has been taken
by the Board and the performance of the students has been
calculated/recalculated by the Board taking into account the
revised answer key wherever applicable or awarded marks for
dropped questions in a suitable manner keeping in mind the
academic interests of the students. Contending that in Ext.P2
Circular, which has been unequivocally stated that the theory
marks will be distributed equally between the two terms of
examinations and Ext.P4 is detrimental to the interest of the
students, the petitioner approached this Court. It is further
contended by the petitioner that his son applied to the courses
under the Indian Maritime University, which require a minimum
PCM average mark of 60%. Applying the 50%:50% distribution of
weightage marks as initially decided in Ext.P2, the petitioner's son
is entitled to get 64.48% of marks. However, in view of the
changed allocation of marks at the rate of 30%:70% as per Ext.P4
Circular, his marks come down to 58%, which made him ineligible
for admission to the courses under the Indian Maritime University.
2025:KER:66709
Based on the relief granted by the High Court of Delhi in Ext.P6
judgment in respect of a similarly placed student, the petitioner
sought a ruling in his favour from this Court.
7. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that
a Committee of Experts was constituted to obtain the views on the
weightage to be given for the term examinations. The meeting of
the Special Committee recommended that the weightage for
Term-I should be around 30% and Term-II should be 70%
respectively. As far as the practicals are concerned, it was
recommended that equal weightage to both Term-I and Term-II
examinations be given. The said recommendations were placed
before the Result Committee on 21.07.2022, and the Result
Committee accepted the recommendation. According to the
respondents, CBSE has declared the results of 35,53,549
students, and any interference with the policy to give weightage
of 30:70, which was implemented on the basis of the opinion of
the Expert Committee, will cause adverse effects to the students.
As far as Ext.P6 judgment is concerned in SLP(C)No.16742 of
2022, the Apex Court clarified that the relief granted by the Delhi
High Court is restricted insofar as the original writ petitioners
2025:KER:66709
therein.
8. The point that requires consideration in these intra-
Court appeals is whether any interference is needed to the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, by exercising
appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958?
9. The law relating to the exercise of intra-Court
jurisdiction is crystallised by the judgments of the Apex Court. In
Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v.
Workmen of Narendra & Company [2016 (3) SCC 340] the
Apex Court, held as under:
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the
records had come to the conclusion that the industry was
not functioning after January 1995, there is no
justification in entering a different finding without any
further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate
Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3
is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be
that as it may, in an intra - court appeal, on a finding of
fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that
the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not
disturb the same. Merely because another view or a
better view is possible, there should be no interference
with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single
2025:KER:66709
Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on
relief." (emphasis supplied)
10. In Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar
Banerjee [AIR 2025 SC 1052] the Apex court held as under:
"The position is, thus, settled that in an intra - court writ
appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the
interference into the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error
apparent in law. However, the Division Bench, in the
present case, failed to record any such finding and rather,
proceeded to delve into extensive reappreciation of
evidence to overturn the judgment of the learned Single
Judge".
11. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of
the learned Single Judge and the materials placed on record. It is
true that in Ext.P2 Special Scheme of Assessment for Board
Examinations for Classes X and XII for the Session 2021-22, four
different situations were contemplated, and as per Scenario 'A',
theory marks will be distributed equally between the two
examinations of Term-I and Term-II. In Ext.P3 Circular dated
14.10.2021 also the particulars of Ext.P2 scheme were reiterated.
However, Ext.P4 Circular was issued, deviating from the decision
2025:KER:66709
in Ext.P2 scheme and Ext.P3 Circular on the basis of a study
conducted by the Expert Committee. Later, CBSE issued Ext.P5
press release, deciding to accept the recommendation of the
Committee to give a weightage of 30% for Term I and 70% for
Term II for theory papers.
12. The learned Single Judge considered all the contentions
raised by the parties to the writ petition and disposed of the same
taking into consideration of the fact that the CBSE has taken the
decision on the basis of representations from various quarters and
after receiving feedback and taking into consideration of the fact
that the results are already declared, it will not be proper to
unsettle the position now. But the learned Single Judge further
considered the academic prospectus of the petitioner's son, who
has done remarkably well in the Term-I Examination. In the
impugned judgment, it was made clear by the learned Single
Judge that the decision taken on the basis of the particular facts
and circumstances of the instant case shall not operate as a
precedent.
13. Though the learned counsel for the appellants in both
these writ appeals raised various contentions relying on Annexure
2025:KER:66709
A1 By-Laws produced in W.A.No.1128 of 2025 and also the
situation of COVID-19 pandemic, while considering the
submissions made at the Bar and the materials on record, we find
no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge which warrants interference of this Court by exercising the
appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
Act, 1958.
In such circumstances, these writ appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:66709
APPENDIX OF WA 1128 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION BY-LAWS
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, CBSE,
Annexure A- 2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO
CBSE/CE/COORD/2021 DATED 25 FEB 2021
REGARDING AWARD OF SUBJECT WISE GRADES
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CBSE
