IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 15 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 6734 of 2014 POOJA SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Swapnil Sharma Advocate appeared for petitioner.

Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the respondent No.

1/State.

Shri Amin Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Board.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India stating therein that she had appeared in the Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the respondent/Board in the year

2014 and has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(i) That, respondents directed to may kindly be revaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner by any other teacher of examiner.

(ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to award the marks afresh after counting and adding the marks left by the respondent while checking the copy of the petitioner.

(iii) That, a compensation of Rs. two lakh may kindly be directed to be paid to the petitioner, for mental harassment, and problems occurred due to awarding the less marks.

(iv) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deems fit, with the cost of the petition."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while valuating questions No. 13, 14, 16, 17,18, 19, 21 & 23, no proper marks have been awarded even though as per Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY the stand of the petitioner answer attempted to the said questions by her are correct in terms of Board sample question paper set-A (Mathematics) filed on record as Annexure P/5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after taking this Court to the various questions attempted by the petitioner has tried to point out that in the aforesaid questions, appropriate marks ought to have been awarded to the petitioner which have not been awarded to her by the respondent/Board. Learned counsel by referring to question No. 17 submits that in the answer script one mark has been awarded to the petitioner, whereas, in the page of consolidation/totalling, no mark against question No. 17 has been awarded to her. Similarly, for question No. 14, he submits that in the answer attempted by the petitioner, no mark has been awarded to her, but in the page of consolidation/totalling one mark has been awarded to her. He further submits that valuation of the answer script of the subject Mathematics attempted by the petitioner suffers from grave illegality and the respondent / Board cannot be permitted to act casually in the matter of valuation of the answer script attempted by the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 15/03/2018 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in W.P. No. 4517/2017 (Sharinath Das Gupta vs. Board of Secondary Education), whereby, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by entering into the merits of the answers attempted by the petitioner therein has allowed the writ petition and has directed to award two marks to the petitioner therein. It is also the case of the petitioner that as against 41 marks granted to her in the subject Mathematics, she ought to have been granted more than 70 marks.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Board opposed the writ petition and submits that there is only provision for retotalling of the marks Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY allotted. There is a bar in the governing regulation against revaluation and, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner for revaluation of the answer script is not legally tenable. He further submits that retotalling of the marks awarded to the petitioner has been done by the Board and the result is "no change". So far as revaluation is concerned, the same is not permissible in the light of the orders passed by this Court in various cases including order dated 02/04/2024 passed in W.P. No. 28067/2023 (Aakansha Singh Gehlot vs. Madhya