The Petitioner had taken the All India Senior Secondary Exam 2020 and was dissatisfied with her marks in two subjects after the results were announced. She complained that seven questions had been incorrectly deleted from her grade. To get her grievance resolved, she followed the method outlined in the CBSE (The Respondent) Circular for "(I) Verification of Marks, (II) Obtaining Photocopy of the Evaluated Answer Book(s), (III) Re-evaluation of Marks," which resulted in revisions to her final marks in both subjects. The Petitioner, on the other hand, was dissatisfied with the results. As a result, she petitioned the Court to order the Respondent to produce a comprehensive plan for revaluation of the answer sheets, and to re-evaluate the Petitioner's answer sheet as per the Respondent's standard model specimen answer, or to explain the marks assigned to her after re-evaluation.
The Petitioner's learned Counsel questioned the Respondent's re-evaluation technique since it did not disclose any rationale for the addition or deduction of marks. He further claimed that the process was arbitrary and discretionary and that there was no right of appeal or review following the re-evaluation process.
The Respondent's learned Counsel maintained that re-evaluation of answer scripts could not be claimed as a right and that it was always subject to the examining authority's norms. She also brought the Judge's attention to the substance of the Respondent's affidavit regarding the scope of the examinations undertaken by it, in order to illustrate the practical difficulties.
The Court accepted that writs' reach in re-evaluation cases was quite limited. The judge concluded that an opportunity for re-evaluation of answer sheets could not be claimed by candidates in any examination as a right and could only be exercised if it had been laid out in the rules governing the examination after considering the arguments presented by both the Petitioner and the Respondent's counsel. The Court found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in CBSE's recommendations, contrary to the Petitioner's claims. It was also noted that the Petitioner had failed to establish a case for relief in this petition, and the petition was rejected.
The petition was dismissed by the Court, which found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the Respondent's evaluation procedures.