ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:--

“(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to make proper revaluation of all subjects of the petitioner by a independent valuer and give correct marks to the petitioner in Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) 2017 in all subjects after making revaluation.

(ii) Respondents be also directed to produce answer sheets, unsolved question papers and model answer sheets of all subjects of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon’ble Court and if required, proper revaluation of the all subjects of the petitioner will be got done by expert teachers of all subjects.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) for the academic year 2017. The respondent declared the result and the petitioner was declared pass in the examination with first division. The petitioner awarded distinction in three subjects i.e. English (Special), Hindi (General) and Mathematics. When the marksheet was received, the petitioner was surprised because in all subjects, she has been given less marks, whereas as per her expectation, more marks should be given. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the valuer has not examined the answer sheets of the petitioner carefully and she has been awarded less marks. Therefore, prayer is made that direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get the revaluation done in all the subjects of the petitioner by a independent valuer or expert teacher.

4. The scope of interference in matter of evaluation of answers in examination is extremely limited u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. Such scope is open only when there is an allegation of non-evaluation or incorrect totalling of marks in case of descriptive type answers. However, in the event of answers being objective in nature, the scope of interference is slightly broader.

5. In the instant case, the answers are descriptive in nature and therefore the wisdom of the expert evaluator in evaluating the answers cannot be adjudged by exercising writ jurisdiction especially in the absence of any expertise with this Court. Moreso, in matters of evaluation of marks awarded in examination ought not to be interfered with or else it may open the pandora’s box and lead to flood of litigation which would be difficult for this Court to handle. This Court is bolstered in its view by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 relevant extract of which is reproduced below :--

“The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevant for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances, the University of Bombay has decided to recognize a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned, it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and HSC Examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence