Court upheld that examination regulations allow revaluation only when zero marks are awarded, rejecting the petition for revaluation.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Higher Education appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

2. Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not considering the correct answers of Section (C) question Nos.18, 20 and 21 and Section (B) question Nos.11, 12 and 13 in Mathematics Paper-B, as a result, petitioner got only 18 marks in Board of Intermediate Examination for the academic year 2024-25, in spite of the representation dated 02.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe Community (ST) and that he appeared for Intermediate Second Year Examination conducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education (TSBIE) in March-April 2025, as a regular student bearing Hall Ticket No.2558236496 and secured high marks in all subjects except Mathematics Paper-B, in which he was awarded only 18 marks and got failed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation with scanned copy, as per the TSBIE’s procedure and the result was published on 28.06.2026 and was awarded only 2 additional marks and the total marks after re- verification was 20. Upon reviewing the scanned answer script, the petitioner discovered errors in evaluation, including full correct answers in Section (C) question Nos.18, 20 and 21 and Section (B) question Nos.11, 12 and 13, which were marked wrong without adhering to the scheme of valuation, thereby causing substantial reduction in marks.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner secured a seat in IIT Madras through JEE Advanced 2025 with an All India Rank, within the cut-off criteria for the branch allotted. As such, the petitioner was denied admission to IIT Madras, not due to lack of merit or eligibility, but due to the delay caused by the TSBIE’s revaluation process and requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to frame and implement a transparent and fair mechanism for revaluation of answer scripts and declare the Section (C) question Nos.18, 20 and 21 and Section (B) question Nos.11, 12 and 13 as correct and award marks.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that after re-verification of the answer scripts, the respondents added two (2) marks to the petitioner for question number 18 in Section C and for all other questions, the petitioner is not awarded any marks. It is settled law that this Court cannot examine the marks allotted to the candidate unless the same is zero. After re-verification, the respondent authorities added two (2) marks to the petitioner in question No.18 in Section (C). The petitioner got a total of 20 marks in Mathematics Paper-B and the same is not sufficient to pass the examination for which the pass mark is 26.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for Intermediate Education relied upon the order passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ganesh Nagendra Kantimahanthi v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh , [1W.P.No.20995 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014] and also the judgment passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gunnam Gokul Krishna v. The Principal Secretary , [2W.A.No.361 of 2008 dated 02.04.2008]

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the above-mentioned judgments would squarely apply to the instant case as the grievance is with regard to the securing of lesser marks and answer sheets of the petitioner being re-verified as per existing rules and regulations a