A candidate's right to request re-evaluation is not guaranteed and must align with the governing rules; judicial review in academic evaluations is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, not merit.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition concerns the process of re-evaluation of answer sheets in terms of a Circular dated 14.07.2020 ["the Circular"] issued by the respondent/Central Board of Secondary Education ["CBSE"]. The petitioner seeks general directions relating to the CBSE scheme for re-evaluation of papers, as well as orders relating specifically to re-evaluation of her own papers.

Facts

2. The petitioner was a student of Bal Bharti Public School, Pitampura, Delhi. She appeared for the Senior Secondary School (Class XII) Examinations, 2020 conducted by the CBSE. The CBSE declared the results of the examinations on 13.07.2020, wherein the petitioner had scored as follows:

3. The petitioner was not satisfied with the marks awarded to her in Political Science (Subject Code: 028) and Economics (Subject Code: 030). She therefore invoked the procedure for "(I) Verification of Marks, (II) Obtaining Photocopy of the Evaluated Answer Book(s), (III) Re-evaluation of Marks", as set out in the Circular.

4. After the first stage of the aforesaid procedure, viz., verification of marks, the petitioner sought photocopies of the answer sheets. She claims to have matched her answers with the Model Answer Key of the CBSE and discerned that as per the Answer Key, there were seven questions where marks were erroneously not awarded to her. Therefore, on 06.08.2020, she applied for re-evaluation of those seven questions- four in Economics and three in Political Science. It thus appears that the petitioner expected a score of 99/100 in Economics and 100/100 in Political Science.

5. The petitioner received the result of the re-evaluation vide email dated 30.08.2020 alongwith a new marks statement. After reevaluation of the answer sheets, the petitioner was awarded one extra mark in each of the two subjects, meaning that she achieved a mark of 96/100 in Economics and 98/100 in Political Science.

6. Unfortunately, the petitioner remains unsatisfied with her performance and has sought the intervention of this Court. The present writ petition has been filed in these circumstances, with the following prayers:

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to issue comprehensive plan for revaluation of the answer sheets considering the concerns of the students and which should not be discretionary/arbitrary; and/or

(b) direct the Respondent to reevaluate the answer sheet of petitioner as per standard model specimen answer issued by the Respondent or

(c) direct the Respondent to give the reason, that why only 1 mark each has been given to the Petitioner in her both papers for which revaluation applied and also give reasons for not given marks in 7 questions which are the concern of the Petitioner in her revaluation application; and/or

(d) Pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

The reliefs claimed thus encompass general directions regarding the scheme of re-evaluation, and specific directions for disclosure of reasons and further re-evaluation of the petitioner's answer sheets.

Submissions of counsel

7. Mr. Anshul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in the course of argument that the petitioner does not press