In the absence of statutory provisions, re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The petitioner, a student of P.B.B.Sc. Nursing at Yogmani Institute of Nursing College, appeared for her second-year examinations in May 2025.

She was declared failed (compartment) in "Introduction to Education Nursing" and "Mental Health Nursing," securing 48 and 43 marks respectively against a passing requirement of 50.

Her application for revaluation was rejected on November 25, 2025, with no change in marks.

Upon obtaining her answer sheets via the RTI Act, she alleged irregularities, claiming answers were mechanically marked with crosses or given disproportionately low marks despite being correct.

Consequently, she filed this writ petition seeking a direction for re-evaluation by an independent examiner.

1. Whether the Court can direct a re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of a statutory or regulatory provision permitting the same.

2. Whether the evaluation process was so arbitrary or palpably incorrect as to warrant judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that in the absence of any statutory or regulatory provision, a candidate has no legal right to claim re-evaluation.

It further relied on the doctrine of judicial restraint in academic matters, establishing that evaluation is the exclusive domain of academic experts.

Under Article 226, judicial review is limited to cases involving mala fides, patent arbitrariness, manifest illegality, or violation of statutory provisions.

The Court also noted that permitting re-evaluation without statutory backing would undermine the finality of examinations and set a precedent for "floodgates" of litigation.

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to point to any specific regulation that allows for the re-evaluation of answer scripts.

While the petitioner alleged a "mechanical" marking pattern, the Court determined these were subjective dissatisfactions rather than evidence of mala fides or procedural irregularities.

The Court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate body over examiners’ opinions or enter the "academic sphere".

Furthermore, the petitioner did not provide model answers to prove her responses were objectively correct, leaving her claims of arbitrary marking unsubstantiated.

The Court reasoned that judicial interference based merely on a student's perception of "quality" would cause administrative chaos.

The Court ruled that re-evaluation cannot be claimed as a matter of right without an enabling provision and that the petitioner failed to prove any patent illegality.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.