Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ayush Sharma Minor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13851
1 WP-24638-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24638 of 2025
AYUSH SHARMA MINOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishant Kourav - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B M Patel - GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"i) That, the committee should be constituted by the MPSEB
headed by competent person to rechecks the answer sheet of the
petitioner and after re-totaling as well as re-evaluation of his
answer sheet of Chemistry, Hindi, English, Biology, Physics
Paper publish the re-evaluated result.
ii) That, it is also direct to the respondent to take action against the
person who is responsible for this illegality.
iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost and
compensation be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
regular student of Government Gorkhi Higher Secondary School and had
appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2025
having Roll No.251433776. The respondents declared the results. The
petitioner secured marks 348 marks out of 500 and has been awarded
distinction in two subjects i.e. English and Biology Subjects. The petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13851
2 WP-24638-2025
was dissatisfied with his marks, therefore, he applied for re-checking, but the
said application was kept in abeyance. Thereafter the petitioner applied for
copy of the answer-sheets and after receiving the copy, when the petitioner
tallied his answer with the text book prescribed by the board, reference
books and as well as also examined by the expert of the subject, he found
that the answer-sheets have not been property evaluated. The examiner has
not given full marks despite of the correct answers and for question No.17
though 2 marks were awarded, in the tabulation sheet, they were updated.
Thus, by way of present petitioner direction has been sought against
respondent No.2 department to re-examine the answer-sheets of the
petitioner by constituting an expert body and thereafter publish the result as
the answers have not been properly evaluated by the examiner.
3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the
respondent. It is submitted that there is no provision for revaluation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Undisputedly, there is no provision for revaluation. The Supreme
Court in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr. Yerra
Trinadh and Others decided on 04 th November, 2022, in Civil Appeal
No.8037/2022 has held as under:-
"7. The short question which is posed for consideration before this
Court is, whether in the absence of any provision for re-
evaluation, the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation
after calling for the record of the answer scripts?
8. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, few decisions of
this Court including two, referred to hereinabove, which have been
relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
University, are required to be referred to and considered.
8.1 In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), it is observed
and held by this Court that in absence of any provision for re-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13851
3 WP-24638-2025
evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim
or demand reevaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is observed and
held as under:
7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and
learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The
main question which arises for consideration is whether the
learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the
answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the
relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a
candidate may be entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer-
book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-
books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers
given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has
been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and
noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book.
There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the
marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In
the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in
the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any
right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC
1543]. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification
(scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by
a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that
they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be
directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as
the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held
that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied
power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and
also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of
the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a
specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his
answer-books re- evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There
is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there
is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-
evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in
the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single
Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant
re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single
Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may
like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-
books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as
and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to
then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-
evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination
conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13851
4 WP-24638-2025
the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the
vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if
a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come
forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him
may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on
the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest,
they must be avoided. 8.2 In the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State
of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, in paragraph 32, it is observed and
held as under:
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this
Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is
interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This
places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where
they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a
massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes
with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates
put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must
not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in
equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The
enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but
the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in
place by the examination authorities before interfering with the
efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated
in the examination and the examination authorities. The present
appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the
examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering
about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination
whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be
approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get
admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will
get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in
confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact
of all this is that public interest suffers.
9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we
are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in
calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether
there was a need for reevaluation or not. As reported, the High
Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying
whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter
orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such
a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter
to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific
provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
disapproved."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13851
5 WP-24638-2025
6. Even otherwise, from perusal of the answer-sheet, it would be
evident that for question No.13, only 1 mark was given to the petitioner and
for 17, 2 marks were awarded, but in the tabulation sheet, the entire marking
of 3 was shown for question No.13, thus, it appears to be a clerical mistake
and not a mistake in evaluation, which would be corrected.
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact and judgment and in absence of
any provision for revaluation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
direction can be issued to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets.
8. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
