Court may direct revaluation in exceptional cases despite the absence of express statutory provisions in university regulations.

The petitioner, a BA-LLB student at Naveen Law College under Devi Ahilya University (DAVV), challenged the evaluation of his fourth-semester Administrative Law paper after receiving 9 out of 80 marks

Despite a high academic record (89.8% in Senior School and over 72% in previous semesters), the university’s online portal only permitted "retotaling" rather than "re-evaluation"

Upon inspecting his answer sheet via an RTI application, the petitioner identified several procedural lapses, including correct answers being struck off without justification and the absence of the evaluator's mandatory signature

After the university dismissed his formal representation, the petitioner approached the High Court

On March 18, 2026, the Court treated this as an "exceptional case" and directed an independent re-evaluation by an Assistant Professor of Law, subject to the petitioner bearing the costs

1. Whether the court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to order a re-evaluation in the absence of explicit statutory provisions under university rules

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a revised marksheet and further relief following the independent evaluator's report

The Court primarily relied on the principles of "interest of justice and fairness" to intervene in academic matters where gross negligence or procedural irregularities are evident

while there is no explicit statutory provision for the re-verification of answer sheets for the specific course under the university's rules, the Court may grant such relief in "exceptional cases" to prevent mental hardship and protect career aspirations

The Court connected the petitioner’s consistently high academic performance with the "stark anomaly" of his failing grade to justify judicial intervention

The Court found the petitioner’s allegations of negligence—specifically the striking off of correct answers and the lack of authentication on the answer sheet—sufficiently credible to warrant an independent review

During the proceedings, an independent evaluator (Shri Nidhi Kumar Tiwari) submitted a report adding marks to the petitioner's score. However, the Court observed that even after the addition of marks, the petitioner’s total score in Administrative Law rose to 27, which remained below the passing threshold of 32 marks

Consequently, the Court determined that while the evaluation error was partially corrected, the petitioner still failed to meet the academic requirements for passing the subject

However, the Court ordered the respondent university to reissue an amended marksheet reflecting the enhanced score of 27 marks in Administrative Law

The Court also directed that the independent evaluation report be kept as part of the official record