MP HC Orders Corrected Marksheet After School Confirms Class 10 Internal Marks Were Swapped Between Two Same-Name Students

The petitioner, Darsh Jain, appeared in the CBSE Class X examination under Roll No. 19129897. Another student of the same name, Darsh Jain S/o Deepak Jain, appeared at the same school under Roll No. 19129932.

The school’s records showed that their internal assessment marks had been interchanged. The school informed the CBSE Regional Office of the error by letter dated 27 June 2026, but CBSE refused correction by email dated 7 May 2026, relying on the applicable SOP timeline.

The petitioner sought verification of the original records, correction of his marks, and issuance of a revised marksheet.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to address an error affecting a student’s result.

It stated that CBSE, as a registered society discharging a public duty, must act in the interests of the beneficiaries of the examination system and cannot avoid its responsibility by adopting a hypertechnical or rigid approach where an error is established and the student is not at fault.

No specific statutory provision beyond Article 226 or judicial precedent was cited.

The school’s records and its communication to CBSE supported the petitioner’s claim that the two students’ internal assessment marks had been interchanged.

Although CBSE relied on the SOP timeline, the Court considered that the petitioner was not responsible for the error and that the school had confirmed it.

It therefore treated reliance on the timeline as an unjustifiably rigid response and held that CBSE was required to correct the result.

The Court directed CBSE to complete the necessary formalities and issue a new marksheet to the petitioner within 10 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.