JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, learned counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the CBSE ).

3. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

(i) For verification/review of two questions of economics i.e. question No-15 and 23 which has been wrongly assess in order to reevaluation of marks of application No.-50686R, Roll No.-22657619 for AISSLI/AISSSCE 2020 main exam.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs for quashing of the letter dated 16.09.2020 sent though email to the petitioner by the CBSE, Regional Office, Patna whereby and whereunder review of re-evaluation of the answer script of economics subject of question No.-15 and 23 has been rejected.

(iii) For any other relief which the petitioner is found entitle in fact and circumstances and for the sake of justice.

4. The basic contention of the petitioner is that she had been given lesser marks than what she deserved in the subject Economics in the Senior School Certificate Examination, 2020. Thus, she applied for re-evaluation. However, the outcome thereof was not fully satisfactory to her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner obtained 91 marks in Political Science; 97 in Economics and 98 in Physical Education, but upon a request for re-evaluation, the CBSE increased the marks in Political Science from 91 to 99; in Physical Education from 98 to 99, but in Economics, where the request was for re-evaluation of questions no. 15 and 23, there has been no change in the marks given for question no. 15 but with regard to question no. 23, one mark has been increased and thus, the total in Economics has increased from 97 to 98. It was submitted that even the answer for question no. 15 was fully correct and, thus, one more mark is to be granted, which has not been done.

6. Learned counsel for the CBSE submitted that as per the relevant provisions, there was a request for re-evaluation, which was accepted by the CBSE, and now there cannot be any further review or a second re-evaluation. It was further submitted that the request of the petitioner has been acceded and in fact, 8 marks have increased in Political Science, one mark in Physical Education and even in Economics, one mark has been added, but the claim of the petitioner for another mark is not tenable. It was submitted that there are expert evaluators and the job is required to be left to them and the conduct of the CBSE being fair is sufficiently reflected from the fact that her marks have increased after re-evaluation. It was submitted that prior to re-evaluation, the average marks of the petitioner were 97.6 but after re-evaluation, it has increased to 98.4.

7. The petitioner feels deprived of the one mark in Economics and has approached the Court in this background.

8. It is useful, at this juncture, to refer to the relevant judicial pronouncements. In University Grants Commission v Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 519, the Hon ble Supreme Court opined:

'31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, (1965) AIR SC 491] , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1] and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] , has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body ha