Absence of statutory provision for revaluation precludes judicial direction for reassessment of answer sheets under Article 226.

The petitioner appeared for the Class 12th Examination in 2018 conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education.

Feeling aggrieved by the marks awarded in the subject of English, the petitioner alleged that the valuer failed to properly check the answer sheets and omitted marks for certain solved questions.

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition seeking a direction for the re-evaluation of his English answer sheets.

The respondent Board opposed the petition, contending that the regulations only permit verification/retotalling and not re-evaluation.

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of specific statutory provisions, a direction for re-evaluation of answer sheets is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

The Court primarily applied Regulation 119 framed under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965, which provides only for the "verification" of marks (checking for omissions in marking or errors in totaling) and explicitly prohibits re-evaluation of answers or re-examination.

The Court further relied on the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee* (2019) and *Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar* (2007), as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court in *Prem Ratan Agrawal v. Board of Secondary Education* (2002), which collectively hold that as a general rule, Courts cannot order re-evaluation unless the rules specifically provide for it or unless there are "extraordinary" circumstances involving gross discrepancies or brilliant students in Science/Mathematics.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific provision, rule, or circular that permits the re-evaluation of answer sheets.

Under Regulation 119, the scope of scrutiny is restricted to "verification" of marks (retotalling and ensuring every answer was marked), and sub-clause (2) specifically states that no candidate shall claim re-examination.

The Court reasoned that since answer sheets are evaluated by experts and model answers are prepared by expert committees, these academic judgments cannot be questioned in a writ petition in the absence of a legal right.

While acknowledging a narrow exception for "extraordinary cases" where "gross discrepancies" are found in objective subjects like Science or Mathematics, the Court found that the petitioner’s case did not meet this threshold and fell within the general rule that the Court has no power to order re-evaluation where the rules do not provide for the same.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as being without merit and made no order as to costs.