IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 169 of 2024 NITIN PRAJAPATI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Gopal Prasad Chourasia - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Aditya Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

Reserved on : 18/02/2026 Delivered on : 20/02/2026 ORDER

1.With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“i). That, respondent No.2 & 3 may kindly be directed to re checking/ retotalling the copy of subject of biology of petitioner other checking authority and enhance the marks properly in accordance with law.

ii). Compensation Rs. 50,000/- may kindly be Awarded.

iii). Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) conducted by the respondent-Board i.e., respondent No. 2 in the year 2023. The roll number of the petitioner was 231829361. In the final result, the petitioner was placed in the First Division by securing 372 out of 500 marks i.e., 74.4% marks in aggregate.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he was awarded lesser marks in the subject of Biology. It is contended that upon comparing petitioner’s answers with the question bank/model answers, it was found that answers to several questions, namely question Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 were correctly attempted but were either awarded zero or inadequate marks. It is,therefore, contended that had proper marks been awarded, the petitioner would have secured higher rank in the district and would have been entitled to appreciation and consequential benefits from the authorities because as per the assessment of the answers attempted by the petitioner made by some other evaluator, the petitioner is entitled to get at least 20 additional marks over and above the 31 marks awarded in the Biology theory paper out of 70 marks.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is not a general prayer for revaluation but pertains to specific answers which, according to him, are demonstrably correct. To buttress this submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment passed by the principal bench of this Court in Saket Tiwari v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Others, W.P. No. 20603 of 2023 (decided on 20.12.2024).

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Board opposed the petition and submitted that in view of Regulation 119 of the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965, there is no provision for revaluation or rechecking of answer sheets and only re- totaling of marks is permissible. It is further submitted that no totaling error has been found. So far as revaluation is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the same is not permissible in light of the orders passed this Court in various cases including Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others v. Abahi Kumar and others (2001) 3 SCC 328; H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759; Neha Indurkhya v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2003 (3) MPLJ 368; Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of MP 2000 MPHT 95 and also by principal seat of this Hon'ble Court in State of M.P. v. Ku. Taruni Gupta &Anr. (W.A.No.892/2013), M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Ors v. Ku. VineetaRupra 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 (DB), Ashutosh Kumar Mishra v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2002 MPHT 237,Neha Indurkhyav. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal 2003 (3) MPLJ 368 (DB), Nitin Pathak v. State of MP and Ors. [2017 (4) MPLJ 35