[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
1 WP-169-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 169 of 2024
NITIN PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gopal Prasad Chourasia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Aditya Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
Reserved on : 18/02/2026
Delivered on : 20/02/2026
ORDER
1.With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is
heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"i). That, respondent No.2 & 3 may kindly be directed
to re checking/ retotalling the copy of subject of
biology of petitioner other checking authority and
enhance the marks properly in accordance with law.
ii). Compensation Rs. 50,000/- may kindly be
Awarded.
iii). Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
2 WP-169-2024
in the facts and circumstances of the case may also
kindly be granted."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the Higher
Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) conducted by the
respondent-Board i.e., respondent No. 2 in the year 2023. The roll number of
the petitioner was 231829361. In the final result, the petitioner was placed in
the First Division by securing 372 out of 500 marks i.e., 74.4% marks in
aggregate.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he was
awarded lesser marks in the subject of Biology. It is contended that upon
comparing petitioner's answers with the question bank/model answers, it was
found that answers to several questions, namely question Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13,
16, 17 and 18 were correctly attempted but were either awarded zero or
inadequate marks. It is,therefore, contended that had proper marks been
awarded, the petitioner would have secured higher rank in the district and
would have been entitled to appreciation and consequential benefits from the
authorities because as per the assessment of the answers attempted by the
petitioner made by some other evaluator, the petitioner is entitled to get at
least 20 additional marks over and above the 31 marks awarded in the
Biology theory paper out of 70 marks.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the
petitioner is not a general prayer for revaluation but pertains to specific
answers which, according to him, are demonstrably correct. To buttress this
submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance
upon a judgment passed by the principal bench of this Court in Saket Tiwari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
3 WP-169-2024
v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Others, W.P. No. 20603 of 2023
(decided on 20.12.2024).
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Board
opposed the petition and submitted that in view of Regulation 119 of the
Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965, there is
no provision for revaluation or rechecking of answer sheets and only re-
totaling of marks is permissible. It is further submitted that no totaling error
has been found. So far as revaluation is concerned, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent that the same is not permissible in light of
the orders passed this Court in various cases including Buddhi Nath
Chaudhary and others v. Abahi Kumar and others (2001) 3 SCC 328; H.P.
Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759; Neha
Indurkhya v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2003 (3) MPLJ
368; Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of MP 2000 MPHT 95 and also by principal
seat of this Hon'ble Court in State of M.P. v. Ku. Taruni Gupta &Anr.
(W.A.No.892/2013), M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Ors v. Ku.
VineetaRupra 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 (DB), Ashutosh Kumar Mishra v. M.P.
Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2002 MPHT 237,Neha Indurkhyav.
M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2003 (3) MPLJ 368 (DB), Nitin
Pathak v. State of MP and Ors. [2017 (4) MPLJ 353] . Thus, it is contended
by the learned counsel for the respondent that in exercise of judicial review,
the Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of subject experts and
accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
4 WP-169-2024
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. The law with regard to interference by the writ court in matters of
revaluation of answer scripts is no longer res integra. In Ran Vijay Singh and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2018 SC 52, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and
we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right,
then the authority conducting the examination may
permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny
of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then
the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it
is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation"
and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material
error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best
left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the
key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of
directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The
entire examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are disappointed
or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been
caused to them by an erroneous question or an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
5 WP-169-2024
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This
Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude
the suspect or offending question.
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."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. Similarly, in High Court of Tripura Through the Registrar General
v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2019
(order dated 06.02.2019), it was held as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
6 WP-169-2024
"18. We have noticed the decisions of this Court.
Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that
there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in
the absence of any provision for revaluation.
Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High
Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on
the said basis. The first question which we would have
to answer is whether despite the absence of any
provision, are the courts completely denuded of power
in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the
right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the
existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty
with the answering respondent to carry out the public
duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first
respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the
review petition demanding holding of revaluation.
19. The question however arises whether even if there is
no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could
there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any
doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a
writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may
arise where even though there is no provision for
revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct
answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be
confined to a case where there is no dispute about the
correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt,
the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining
body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide
power under Article 226 may continue to be available
even though there is no provision for revaluation
despite having giving correct answer and about which
there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is
treated as having given the wrong answer and
consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any
marks.
20. Should the second circumstance be demonstrated to
be present before the writ court, can the writ court
become helpless despite the vast reservoir of power
which it possesses? It is one thing to say that the
absence of provision for revaluation will not enable the
candidate to claim the right of evaluation as a matter of
right and another to say that in no circumstances
whatsoever where there is no provision for revaluation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
7 WP-169-2024
will the writ court exercise its undoubted constitutional
powers? We reiterate that the situation can only be rare
and exceptional."
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. The Division Bench of this Court (Principal Seat at Jabalpur) in the
case of Ankur Sharma & Others v. The Madhya Pradesh Medical Science
University and Another, in W.P. No.7654/2022 decided on 07.09.2022 has
culled out certain exigencies, wherein the order for revaluation of the answer
scripts can be issued which can be summarized as under:
(i) Where student is bright.
(ii) When injustice have been done.
(iii) Re-valuation can be specially in the cases of Mathematics and
Science.
(iv) If Court finds gross discrepancies in the answer book then
reevaluation can be ordered.
12. In the aforesaid proposition of settled law, when the facts of the
instant case are examined, it is noteworthy that though the subject in which
revaluation has been sought for by the petitioner is of Biology, however, the
questions/answers are not objective type but the answers are required to be
attempted by the student as narrated in question no. 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and
18 in subjective manner.
13. This Court though not an expert in the subject yet with the
assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, did comparison of question
Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 attempted by the petitioner with the model
answers as annexed in Annexure P/4. Even upon a mere ocular comparison,
it could be gathered that the petitioner has not answered the specific
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
8 WP-169-2024
questions in terms of the specific model answers provided. In question no.
18, the specific question of writing a short note on biopiracy has not been
answered by the petitioner as per the Model Answer of the said question in
Annexure P/4. Similarly, the answers to question nos. 8, 11,12,13, 16 and 17
are also not specifically answered in terms of the Model Answer of the
respective questions in Annexure P/4 and therefore, cannot be questioned by
the petitioner on the grounds as argued. Thus, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case for referring answer script of the petitioner for
revaluation on merits is made out.
14. The record further indicats that the petitioner has secured 372 out
of 500 marks, i.e., 74.4% marks in aggregate and has been placed in the First
Division. The principal grievance of the petitioner appears to be that if
additional marks were awarded in the Biology paper, he might have secured
a higher percentage and consequential benefits by the appropriate authorities.
Upon such dissatisfaction with the quantum of marks, the instant writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner with an attempt to call for a roving
inquiry which may not be permissible.
15. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, no
manifest illegality or palpable perversity is reflected. No cogent ground has
been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner to show indulgence in the case
in hand. Thus, no case for interference is made out under the discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court by exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner has to work hard to ameliorate himself.
16. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6913
9 WP-169-2024
17. All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
