CWP-10154 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Suhale Sharma ( State of Punjab CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. through his father, against the order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure P issued by the respondent marks, along with 27 other students, Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (for short, ‘CCE’). Further, he also prays for a Mandamus upon the respondent his correct marks, the respondent 2. 19), the respondent 10154-2020 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Suhale Sharma (Since minor) through his father namely Lalit Kumar Versus Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Jagmohan S. Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent-Punjab School Education Board. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate, for the respondent-School. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is a minor, has approached this Court through his father, against the order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure P issued by the respondent-Board, vide which, request for correction in his , along with 27 other students, has been declin Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (for short, ‘CCE’). Further, also prays for a Mandamus upon the respondent his correct marks, on the basis of the CCE system, besides the respondent-Board to issue the revised/correct result. In nutshell, owing to the outbreak of the pandemic (Covid 19), the respondent-Board, in order to ensure safety IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10154-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2026 inor) through his father namely Lalit Kumar ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Jagmohan S. Ghuman, Advocate, Punjab School Education Board. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate, The petitioner, who is a minor, has approached this Court through his father, against the order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure P-4), Board, vide which, request for correction in his has been declined, in terms of the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (for short, ‘CCE’). Further, also prays for a Mandamus upon the respondent-School to re-upload of the CCE system, besides a direction to issue the revised/correct result. In nutshell, owing to the outbreak of the pandemic (Covid- , in order to ensure safety and welfare of the 6 The petitioner, who is a minor, has approached this Court 4), Board, vide which, request for correction in his ed, in terms of the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (for short, ‘CCE’). Further, upload a direction to - of the AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-10154 students, decided to abstain from conducting physical examinations, which were slated i performance of the students on the basis of the conducted by the School, as per the discipline etc. 3. other students, report sent by the application was moved by the Principal of the respondent to a clerical error, marks class, had been wrongly filled, therefore, revi issued, which, as referred to above, has been rejected. Hence, the instant writ petition. 4. admitted position, as reflected from application (Annexure P clerical error had occurred uploading/filing the CCE online marks of some of the students, including the petitioner. evaluated, and he was awarded less marks. In such circumstances, he submits that committed by the 5. invites attention towards School has subject, which is apparently suggesting the marks obtained by all the 28 10154-2020 (O&M) -2- students, decided to abstain from conducting physical examinations, which were slated in March, 2020. Further, it was decided to evaluate the performance of the students on the basis of the conducted by the School, as per the CCE system, discipline etc. In the matter at hand, result of the pet other students, was declared on the basis of the aforesaid evaluating report sent by the respondent-School application was moved by the Principal of the respondent to a clerical error, marks of 28 students, including the petitioner, for 10 class, had been wrongly filled, therefore, revi issued, which, as referred to above, has been rejected. Hence, the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits admitted position, as reflected from application (Annexure P clerical error had occurred on the part of the School authorities, uploading/filing the CCE online marks of some of the students, including the petitioner. Therefore, the performance of the petitioner was wrongly evaluated, and he was awarded less marks. In such circumstances, he that the petitioner should not be subjected to suffer for the wrong committed by the School authorities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent invites attention towards Annexure P-2, School has now awarded maximum marks to the petitioner in each subject, which is apparently suggesting a the marks obtained by all the 28 students ( students, decided to abstain from conducting physical examinations, n March, 2020. Further, it was decided to evaluate the performance of the students on the basis of the monthly examinations CCE system, along with attendance, result of the petitioner, alongwith was declared on the basis of the aforesaid evaluating School. However, subsequently, an application was moved by the Principal of the respondent-School that due students, including the petitioner, for 10th class, had been wrongly filled, therefore, revised result may kindly be issued, which, as referred to above, has been rejected. Hence, the instant Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position, as reflected from application (Annexure P-3), that a on the part of the School authorities, while uploading/filing the CCE online marks of some of the students, including re, the performance of the petitioner was wrongly evaluated, and he was awarded less marks. In such circumstances, he subjected to suffer for the wrong earned counsel for the respondent-Board 2, and submits that, in fact, the awarded maximum marks to the petitioner in each a foul play. Further, he refers to students (page 27 of the paper book), to students, decided to abstain from conducting physical examinations, n March, 2020. Further, it was decided to evaluate the monthly examinations ttendance, alongwith was declared on the basis of the aforesaid evaluating an School that due th sed result may kindly be issued, which, as referred to above, has been rejected. Hence, the instant that it is an 3), that a while uploading/filing the CCE online marks of some of the students, including re, the performance of the petitioner was wrongly evaluated, and he was awarded less marks. In such circumstances, he subjected to suffer for the wrong Board the awarded maximum marks to the petitioner in each foul play. Further, he refers to ), to AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-10154 submit that marks of every student has been increased and that to in each subject. H the marks could decision dated 12.07.20 the Schools, asserts that instant case, result was declared on 29.05.2020, whereas, the application was moved by the respondent Therefore, in strict adherence to the Policy decision, as narrated above, the application in question has been rejected 6. perused the record. 7. that there as such, his result 8. the application dated 03.06.2020: 10154-2020 (O&M) -3- submit that marks of every student has been increased and that to in each subject. Had there been actually a clerical error the marks could have been tilted either way decision dated 12.07.2013, marks of CCE the Schools, cannot be reviewed, once the result asserts that it is apposite to bring to the notice of the Court that, in the instant case, result was declared on 29.05.2020, whereas, the application was moved by the respondent-School on 03.06.2020 (Annexure P Therefore, in strict adherence to the Policy decision, as narrated above, pplication in question has been rejected This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. The entire case of the petitioner is predicated upon a plea that there exists a clerical error on the part of the School as such, his result ought to have been revised. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to refer to the application dated 03.06.2020:- “It is submitted here that while filing the CCE online marks of some of the class of 10 wrongly filled due to clerical error. Keeping in view the future of the students, revised result may kindly be issued after correcting the CCE. The concerned CCE is attached herewith. I am ready to deposit the requisite fees for the same.” submit that marks of every student has been increased and that to in each a clerical error in filing the CCE online, way. Further, as per the Policy 3, marks of CCE evaluation system, as sent by reviewed, once the result has been declared. He the notice of the Court that, in the instant case, result was declared on 29.05.2020, whereas, the application School on 03.06.2020 (Annexure P-3). Therefore, in strict adherence to the Policy decision, as narrated above, pplication in question has been rejected. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and The entire case of the petitioner is predicated upon a plea exists a clerical error on the part of the School authorities, and revised. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to refer to “It is submitted here that while filing the CCE online marks of some of the class of 10th standard CCE has been wrongly filled due to clerical error. Keeping in view the future of the students, revised result may kindly be issued after correcting the CCE. The concerned CCE is attached herewith. I am ready to deposit the requisite fees for the submit that marks of every student has been increased and that to in each , as per the Policy evaluation system, as sent by He the notice of the Court that, in the instant case, result was declared on 29.05.2020, whereas, the application 3). Therefore, in strict adherence to the Policy decision, as narrated above, This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and The entire case of the petitioner is predicated upon a plea , and Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to refer to “It is submitted here that while filing the CCE online standard CCE has been wrongly filled due to clerical error. Keeping in view the future of the students, revised result may kindly be issued after correcting the CCE. The concerned CCE is attached herewith. I am ready to deposit the requisite fees for the AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-10154 9. reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by the School authorities to lend credence to their version that a clerical error had occurred uploading the CCE of some of the students the 28 students have been revised respondent occurred only qua some of the students. concerned, it would also be imperative to refer to Annexure P depicts his marks OUN.A Old/NE W ENG OLD/NE W XX XX 3…5 6…10 10. authority, in collusion with the petitioner, endeavoured to increase his marks to the maximum, neither any plausible supporting document was appended to persuade subject, such an error document, which is clouded by the suspicion, cannot be made the foundational b revise the result and award the marks, as suggested by the School. only that, even in terms of the Policy decision, as indicated above, stand of the Board was categoric that post declaration of the result, marks of CCE system of evaluation cannot be reviewed. petitioner does not carve out any exception to the abovesaid Policy decision. 10154-2020 (O&M) -4- A bare perusal of the abovesaid application reflects that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by the School authorities to lend credence to their version that a clerical error had occurred uploading the CCE of some of the students the 28 students have been revised, but on the higher side respondent-School miserably failed to explain, as to how, the error had occurred only qua some of the students. So far as the cerned, it would also be imperative to refer to Annexure P depicts his marks:- ENG OLD/NE HINDI OLD/NE W MATH OLD/NE W SCI OLD/NE W XX XX XX XX 6…10 7…10 5…10 4…10 It seems that, post declaration of the result, the School authority, in collusion with the petitioner, endeavoured to increase his marks to the maximum, under the guise of neither any plausible reason was assigned in the application, nor any supporting document was appended to persuade subject, such an error had occurred. document, which is clouded by the suspicion, cannot be made the foundational basis to pass any direction upon the respondent revise the result and award the marks, as suggested by the School. , even in terms of the Policy decision, as indicated above, stand of the Board was categoric that post declaration of the result, marks of CCE system of evaluation cannot be reviewed. petitioner does not carve out any exception to the abovesaid Policy A bare perusal of the abovesaid application reflects that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by the School authorities to lend credence to their version that a clerical error had occurred while uploading the CCE of some of the students. Interestingly, marks of all on the higher side only. Further, School miserably failed to explain, as to how, the error had So far as the case of petitioner is cerned, it would also be imperative to refer to Annexure P-2, which SST OLD/NE W CS OLD/NE W PHY OLD/NE W PUN.B OLD/NE W XX XX XX XX 6…10 5….10 6….10 6…10 It seems that, post declaration of the result, the School authority, in collusion with the petitioner, endeavoured to increase his under the guise of the clerical error. However, reason was assigned in the application, nor any supporting document was appended to persuade, as to how, in each occurred. In such circumstances, the document, which is clouded by the suspicion, cannot be made the asis to pass any direction upon the respondent-Board to revise the result and award the marks, as suggested by the School. Not , even in terms of the Policy decision, as indicated above, the stand of the Board was categoric that post declaration of the result, marks of CCE system of evaluation cannot be reviewed. So much so, case of the petitioner does not carve out any exception to the abovesaid Policy A bare perusal of the abovesaid application reflects that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by the School authorities to lend while . Interestingly, marks of all Further, School miserably failed to explain, as to how, the error had petitioner is 2, which OLD/NE It seems that, post declaration of the result, the School authority, in collusion with the petitioner, endeavoured to increase his . However, reason was assigned in the application, nor any in each In such circumstances, the document, which is clouded by the suspicion, cannot be made the Board to Not the stand of the Board was categoric that post declaration of the result, marks So much so, case of the petitioner does not carve out any exception to the abovesaid Policy AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-10154 11. of the respondent Accordingly, the instant writ petition is 07.04.202 Ak Sharma 10154-2020 (O&M) -5- In view of the above, this Court finds no flaw in the decision of the respondent-Board and the same deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable this Court finds no flaw in the decision Board and the same deserves to be upheld. dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No this Court finds no flaw in the decision Board and the same deserves to be upheld. AMIT KUMAR 2026.04.10 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document