Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Varshita Kanwar Rathod, D/o Bhupendra Singh Rathod, (Minor) Through Her Natural Guardian - Father Bhupendra Singh Rathore S/o Virendra Singh Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education – Respondent
Order :
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.)
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to take immediate prompt action for the redressal of the grievances of the Petitioner on the basis of the mistake committed by the Examination Centre by supplying a different question paper.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not check the copies of the examination of Social Science paper held on 17.03.2025 until an opportunity of re- test is accorded to the Petitioner’s Daughter to ensure fairness and restore their confidence in the examination process;
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a re-examination for the Petitioner’s daughter to ensure fairness and restore their confidence in the examination process;
(iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stay the publication of the result until the pendency of the present petition and conducting of the re-
Students should not suffer due to administrative errors in examinations; evaluation must reflect their actual performance regardless of mistakes made by invigilators.
Interference under Article 226 is discretionary and requires demonstration of substantial prejudice, which was not established in this case; courts must temper legal action with equity.
The withholding of examination results without prior complaints or sufficient evidence of malpractice constitutes an arbitrary exercise of authority, undermining procedural fairness.
The court has the authority to set aside a direction for re-examination, even when acknowledging the candidates' difficult circumstances.
The court can award compensation for the irresponsible conduct of an examining body that adversely affects a student's career and future prospects.
In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the guidelines, re-evaluation is not permissible.
Changing evaluation rules post-examination violates Article 14, ensuring equal treatment for all candidates.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
