Examining boards must verify disputed internal assessment marks against original records before correcting results.

Twenty-eight students of the petitioner-institution appeared in the D.El.Ed. Second Year Examination for the 2025–26 session. The petitioner claimed to have submitted their internal theory and practical/work-experience marks, but the marksheets recorded them as “ABSENT” for those components.

The petitioner sought correction after making representations to the Board. The Board responded that internal marks had to be entered through the institution’s authorised login and that the login entries showed the students as absent. The record also disclosed a dispute between rival factions over the institution’s management and control of its login credentials; earlier proceedings had addressed that dispute and the processing of examination forms.

Whether the Board should be directed to incorporate the internal assessment marks claimed by the petitioner where the Board’s records showed the students as “ABSENT” and the parties relied on competing material.

Whether the Board should verify the petitioner’s claimed submissions against its original examination records and related online data before deciding whether the marksheets require correction.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowered the Court to consider the requested public-law relief. The Board’s prescribed procedure required internal assessment marks to be submitted through the authorised institutional login, while external practical marks were submitted through the Coordinating Institution’s login.

Where competing material raised a factual question about whether marks were duly submitted, the appropriate course was for the Board to verify its original examination records and relevant supporting material; the Court would not itself reassess or determine the marks. No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited.

The petitioner produced material supporting its claim that the marks had been forwarded, while the Board relied on the authorised login entries recording the students as absent.

The Court also noted the prior dispute over the institution’s management and login credentials, but did not decide which faction was entitled to operate the login. Because the record contained competing evidence and the Board held the relevant examination and online records, the Court required the Board to verify the claim rather than order the incorporation of particular marks itself.

If the marks were established as duly submitted under the prescribed procedure, the Board was to incorporate them, issue revised marksheets/results, and upload the corrected results where required. The Court expressly directed no particular marks to be awarded or incorporated.