[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhavesh Singh vs Board Of Secondary Education Madhya ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35313
1 WP-26890-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 3rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26890 of 2024
BHAVESH SINGH
Versus
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Varun Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Meenakshi Katara on behalf of Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned
counsel for the respondent / Board.
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for revaluation of answer-sheets of the
subject of English, Hindi, Mathematics, Physics & Chemistry in Higher
Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2), 2024 conducted by
the respondent.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is
confining his petition only in respect of revaluation of answer-sheet of
subject English.
03. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per
Regulation 119 of the respondent, revaluation is not permissible. She has
relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Ranvijay Singh & Others
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35313
2 WP-26890-2024
v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 and of
this Court in Neha Indurkhya v/s M.P. Board of Secondary Education
reported in 2003 (3) M.P.L.J. 368 amongst others to submit that in
absence of any provision for revaluation, the same cannot be directed.
04. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent themselves, it has been stated that revaluation can be directed
in exceptional circumstances; provided the petitioner is able to make out
his case of the same deem of exceptional circumstances.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out four
questions, the answers written by the petitioner and the answers given in
the model answers. Perusal of the same shows that the petitioner had
given the answer correctly as per the model answer prepared by the
respondent themselves.
06. Having gone through the model answers and the answers
given by the petitioner, it is evident that the answers were correct and the
petitioner ought to have been awarded marks for the same. However, the
petitioner has not been awarded any marks for the same and has in fact
been awarded zero marks. Though two of the answers are descriptive in
nature, but they precisely contain the crux of the answer as given in the
model answer. The remaining two are perfectly in consonance with
model answers. Thus, it is apparent that in the matter of evaluation of the
answer-sheet of the petitioner, there is an apparent error having been
committed by the respondent leading to non-awarding appropriate marks
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35313
3 WP-26890-2024
for the same.
07. For the purpose of understanding the incorrectness in the
evaluation of the answers of the petitioner as per the model answer, the
same may be compared as under:-
ENGLISH SUBJECT
Answer given in
Question Answer written by the Petitioner the Model
Answer
7(iv)
She did not
talk to me.
She did not
look at me. She neither talked to me nor looked at She talked to
neither
me nor
(Combine me. looked at me.
the
sentence
using
Neither ......
nor)
8(B)(ii)
How many
days old is
the baby Ten Ten days
when he
opens his
lips in
speech.
9(iv)
What doubt Edlaher
was having doubt that the person Edla thought that
father was thinking peddler was not either he had
did Edla that. He seemed
have about robbed someone to or
be the person who stolen something
one who has ran or else he has
the peddler from the jail. escaped from jail.
?
11(iii)
Will Hana Hana helped the wounded man and Yes, she helped
help the washed him herself as first she asked the wounded man
wounded as he was thefirst
her servants but they said no to her and washed him,
part of enemy. but Hana herself. She is a
man and was a good human
wash him all mud and blood. so she washed his nice and
sympathetic lady.
herself ?
08. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35313
4 WP-26890-2024
petitioner falls within the category of an extraordinary case, where
evaluation of the marks has been incorrectly done and deserves to be
directed to be revaluated.
09. The petition hence deserves to be and is allowed in part and
the respondent / Board is directed to revaluate the Class - XII answer
paper of English subject of the petitioner and to award him appropriate
marks for question Nos.7(iv), 8(B)(ii), 9(iv) and 11(iii) and to amend the
marks given earlier if it appears that there has been a shortcoming in the
evaluation of the answer-sheet, and to issue fresh mark-sheet to the
petitioner. Let the same be done within a period of 45 days from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Ravi
