Revaluation cannot be ordered absent malafides, tampering, or gross negligence causing manifest injustice.

The petitioner, a student who claimed to have secured distinction in all subjects in the High School Certificate Examination, 2016 (Class X), alleged that she had been awarded fewer marks than deserved in Science and sought re-evaluation of her answer-script

The respondent submitted that the petitioner had already applied for re-totalling, which disclosed no change in marks. It was further argued, with reference to the answer-sheet produced on record, that the answers were descriptive and that the examiner had awarded marks in accordance with his assessment of the petitioner’s responses

The respondent opposed re-evaluation, relying on established Supreme Court and High Court precedents holding that revaluation is not ordinarily available unless expressly permitted by the examination rules or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for re-evaluation of her answer-sheet merely on the allegation that she had received fewer marks than deserved, particularly after re-totalling had revealed no change

2. Whether the facts disclosed mala fides, tampering, or gross negligence resulting in manifest injustice so as to justify the High Court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the absence of a right to revaluation

3. Whether the examiner’s assessment of descriptive answers could be interfered with merely because another evaluator might award different marks

The Court applied the principle that a student has no right to seek revaluation unless the applicable examination rules specifically provide for it; provisions concerning scrutiny, re-totalling, or rechecking do not confer such a right.

In exceptional cases, a constitutional court may direct production or revaluation of an answer-script where mala fides, tampering, or gross negligence causing serious injustice is established, but not merely because the student believes that higher marks were warranted. Differences arising from evaluative perception in descriptive answers do not justify revaluation, and ordinary human error or minor discrepancies are insufficient

The Court also relied on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, M.P. Board of Secondary Education v. Ku. Vinita Rupra, and Secretary, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das

Under Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., courts should not order re-evaluation on grounds of sympathy or dissatisfaction, as interference may undermine the finality and fairness of the examination process and prejudice the larger body of candidates

The Court found that the answers were descriptive and that the examiner had assessed them in the exercise of evaluative judgment

The petitioner had not established mala fides, tampering, or gross negligence; nor had she shown circumstances amounting to the exceptional injustice required for judicial intervention

The fact that she considered herself meritorious, or believed that she deserved additional marks, could not overcome the legal distinction between permissible re-totalling—which had already been undertaken without any change—and impermissible revaluation.

Since assessment of descriptive answers may legitimately vary between examiners, the Court held that a possible difference in opinion regarding the quality or completeness of the answers was not a ground for directing re-evaluation

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit, with no direction for re-evaluation or other relief