The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22510 of 2025 Surjit Mohanty …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. S. K. Das, Adv. Opposite Parties -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Represented by Adv.- Mr. T.N. Pattanaik, Sr. Panel Counsel Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & others CORAM: Order No. 07. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
Decision
ORDER 26.09.2025 Petitioner-student has coined his prayer in the petition as under: “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to reevaluate the answer script of the petitioner pertaining to the subject Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics in terms of the key answer published by CBSE and the text books and to award proper marks and to issue revised mark sheet to the petitioner forthwith in order to enable him to admit into the engineering course or else he will be highly prejudice and suffer irreparable loss;” 2. Certain information was sought for from the petitioner as to whether he had applied for revaluation of certain answers and on which the same was applied for. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the additional affidavit of his client dated 25.09.2025. For ease of understand material dates and events, the full affidavit is reproduced: “ IN THE HIGH COUT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22510 of 2025 Page 1 of 4 Surjit Mohanty .... Petitioner -Versus- CBSE & others .... Opp. Parties Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner: I, Surjit Mohanty, aged about 19 years, son of Sri Suraj Mohanty, Plot No. 6-C, 14/94, Sector-10, CDA, Cuttack, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. That I am the petitioner in this case. 2. That in course of hearing, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to know, (i) the date of application submitted by the petitioner for revaluation of his answer scripts, (ii) date of application and deposit of fees for the scanned copies of answer scripts and (iii) the date of receipt of answer scripts. 3. That it is humbly submitted that pursuant to the notice dtd:19.05.2025 of the CBSE regarding post result declaration facilities, the petitioner has made an online application on 26.05.2025 to obtained the scanned copy of the answer scripts pertaining to five (05) subjects by depositing the necessary fees of Rs. 2500-through online banking system. The CBSE has facilitated a password to the petitioner to obtained the scanned copies of his answer scripts to through online mode on receive 06.06.2025. Accordingly, on the very same date the petitioner has downloaded his answer script from the CBSE website. the answer script On verification of the answer scripts the petitioner has put forth his claim for revaluation vide Application No. B67448R dtd: 08.06.2025 as against his Roll No. 12642848 for Question Nos. 20 and 27 in the subject Mathematics (041), Question No. 23 in the subject Physics (042) and Question No. 29 in the subject Chemistry (043). The result of which was made available the petitioner on 29.06.2025 through email. That it is humbly submitted that on further scrutiny of 4. the answer script with the help of his teachers, the petitioner has found that he has not been awarded the Question against appropriate marks (13 33 and Nos.6,9,14,16,17,19,22,24,27,29,30,31 as to Page 2 of 4 Questions) in the subject Chemistry. Similarly in the subject Physics he has further doubt as against the marks awarded to him in Question Nos. 1,5,6,7,9,13,16,20,25 27 and 32 (12 Questions) and in the subject Mathematics also he has not been awarded appropriate marks against the correct answers for Question Nos. 10, 12, 16, 20, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35 and 37 (10 Questions). 5. That it is humbly submitted that since the petitioner could not raise his objection to those answers in his application did: 01.06.2025, the CBSE is raising the objection that further revaluation is not permissible. In such view of the matter the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court for justice, with a prayer to direct the authorities of the CBSE to reevaluate the answers pertaining to the Questions in the aforesaid three subjects as mentioned above, by any of the examiners of their choice and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner in order to protect his future and career. 6. That, the facts stated above are all true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Identified buy Sd/- Deponent Sd/- Advocate Certificate Certified that due to want of cartridge papers this affidavit is typed in this thick white papers; Sd/- Advocate” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that after receiving copies of his answer scripts he could make the decision as to whether he should go for revaluation of certain answers, which were not applied for revaluation earlier, and therefore, he made the decision to go Page 3 of 4 for revaluation accordingly, although no application for such valuation formally was made. This is reflected in the affidavit also. 4. Learned Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Pattanaik appearing for the answering OPs submits that revaluation, if permitted under the extant rules, only then can be sought for; accordingly, the petitioner had sought for revaluation of certain answers and that revaluation admittedly has been accomplished; therefore, the answers to other questions in the same subject cannot be ordered to be revalued by this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petitioner papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as it has been the consistent view of the Apex Court that unless revaluation right is granted and exercised intime, Writ Court should not grant indulgence, inasmuch as that would open up flood gates of litigations, as rightly submitted by learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the answering OPs. In this case, admittedly, although subject is same, the answers were not sought for revaluation at all, although other answers were sought for such revaluation. In the above circumstances, petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy. Before parting with this case, the Court appreciates the efforts made by Mr. Pattanaik, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the OPs in securing the answer sheets for the perusal of this Court. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 29-Sep-2025 16:33:03 Prasant ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge Page 4 of 4