Patna High Court
Arya Kumari, minorversusBihar School Examination Board
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
In the absence of a specific provision conferring a right to re‑evaluate answer‑books, no candidate can claim or be granted re‑evaluation of marks.
Summary
The petitioners, minors represented by their guardians, challenged the marks awarded to them in the 2025 Matriculation Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB), alleging that the evaluation was unsatisfactory and seeking re‑evaluation of their answer scripts by an independent committee. The BSEB contended that there is no provision in its rules granting candidates a right to re‑evaluation, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The Court examined the decisions in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission, Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, and Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, which uniformly held that without a specific rule, no right to re‑evaluation exists and only scrutiny for clerical errors is permissible. The Court found that the BSEB’s regulations contain no clause for re‑evaluation and therefore the petitioners could not claim such a right. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of legal basis.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate has a legal right to re‑evaluation of answer‑books in the absence of a specific provision in the examination rules.
- Whether the High Court can direct re‑evaluation of answer‑scripts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- re‑evaluation
- examination marks
- right to inspection
- writ petition
- Article 226
- Bihar School Examination Board
- scrutiny of answer‑books
- judicial review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.516 of 2026
======================================================
1. Arya Kumari, minor through her natural guardian and father Bhupesh
Kumar Tripathi, aged about 47 years, male, son of Late Kavindra Nath
Tripathai, R/o Village-Kazipur, P.O.-Dumri, P.S.-Simri, District-Buxar.
2. Prince Kumar, Minor, through his natural guardian and father Ajay Kumar
Gupta, aged about 51 years, male, Son of Ramesh Prasad, resident of Afim
Kothi, Majhuva, Arrah, P.S.-Awadhpuri, District-Bhojpur, Pin-802301.
3. Sanjog Kumar Roy, minor, through his natural guardian and mother Lilavati
Devi, aged about 49 years, female, wife of Hiralal Ray, R/o Village-Girija
More, P.O.-Nawada Arrah, District-Bhojpur.
4. Neha Kumari, minor, through his natural guardian and father Sunil Prasad
Kharwar, aged about 42 years, male, son of Mahendra Prasad Kharwar,
Resident of Bhaluhipur, Chajangunj, Arrah, District-Bhojpur.
5. Sristi Kumari, minor, through her natural guardian and mother Sima Devi,
aged about 39 years, female, Wife of Rajiv Kumar, resident of Maula Bagh,
Gayatri Mandir, Arrah, District-Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar School Examination Board Sinha Library Road, Patna through
Secretary.
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road,
Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.
4. The Examination Controller, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha
Library Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv.
Ms. Kanupriya, Adv.
Ms. Aastha Prakash, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 12-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for
the petitioners and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned senior Advocate
representing the Bihar School Examination Board (for short ‘the
BSEB’).
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/5
2. The petitioners, through their natural guardians,
have approached this Court aggrieved with their respective
marks awarded to them in the Matriculation Examination–2025
conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB).
Despite having performed outstandingly well in the said
examination, they have been awarded less marks in comparison
to their performance. On being dissatisfied with the evaluation,
they approached this Court seeking revaluation of their answer
scripts by constituting an independent committee of
academicians/teachers.
3. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior Advocate for
the BSEB, at the outset, refuted the contention and submits at
the Bar, that in absence of any provision for revaluation of
answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for
revaluation of his marks. The issue has been duly considered
and set at rest by series of decisions, out of which two of them
have been referred before this Court i.e. Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission,
Patna & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 714] and further Dr. NTR
University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors.
[(2022) 18 SCC 716].
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
3/5
4. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective
parties and carefully gone through the rulings of the Apex
Court, where the Court has made it clear that in absence of
specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have
his answer books re-evaluated no such direction can be issued.
It would be worth benefitting to encapsulate para-7 of the
decision rendered in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava
(supra).
“7. We have heard the appellant (writ
petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the
respondents at considerable length. The main
question which arises for consideration is whether
the learned Single Judge was justified in directing
re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant
in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules
of the Commission, there is no provision wherein
a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-
evaluation of his answer-book. There is a
provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-
books are seen for the purpose of checking
whether all the answers given by a candidate have
been examined and whether there has been any
mistake in the totalling of marks of each question
and noting them correctly on the first cover page
of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after
scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks
awarded to the appellant in the General Science
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
4/5
paper. In the absence of any provision for re-
evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules,
no candidate in an examination has got any right
whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his
marks. This question was examined in
considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27:
AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevant rules
provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an
application made to that effect by a candidate.
Some of the students filed writ petitions praying
that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-
books and the Board be directed to conduct re-
evaluation of such of the answer-books as the
petitioners may demand after inspection. The High
Court held that the rule providing for verification
of marks gave an implied power to the examinees
to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to
seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The
judgment of the High Court was set aside and it
was held that in absence of a specific provision
conferring a right upon an examinee to have his
answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can
be issued. There is no dispute that under the
relevant rule of the Commission there is no
provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-
books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer
made by the appellant in the writ petition was
wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had
Patna High Court CWJC No.516 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
5/5
clearly erred in having the answer-book of the
appellant re-evaluated.”
5. Further, in Dr. Yerra Trinadh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the afore-noted observations
as also considering the catena of decisions on the point has held
and disapproved the practice of calling for answer
scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation, that
too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for
re-evaluation, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Coming to the case at hand, the petitioner has
failed to satisfy this Court that there is any rules or regulation
for re-evaluation of the answer scripts/ answer sheets. Hence, in
such circumstances, no candidate in an examination has got any
right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
7. In view of the afore-noted settled legal position,
this Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U
Checking your session…