8 0055..0033..22002255 Ct. No. 18 adeb W.P.A. 3755 of 2025 Nur Mahammad Mir Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury Mr. Rajib Ghosh Mr. Babhru Bahan Bera Mr. Avisek Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr. Shamim ul Bari Ms. Indrani Nandi …for the State Mr. Protik Dhar Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Ms. Madhurima Sarkar …for the Madrasah Service Commission Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Petitioner participated in 7th State Level Selection Test 2023 for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in History for classes IX and X in madrasah. Final written examination was held on 3rd March, 2024 and result was published on 21st December, 2024. On publication of the result petitioner found that he was not selected to participate in the interview which was conducted in the month of January 2025. By presenting this writ petition, inter alia, petitioner has questioned the assessment of answers which he wrote to question nos. 40 and 2 62 in final written examination. However, nothing has been produced before this Court today conferring right upon a candidate to ask for re- assessment of answer scripts based on any statutory provisions. Learned senior advocate representing West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission submits that there is no statutory provision conferring right upon an examinee/candidate to pray for re- assessment of answer scripts. In this regard reliance is placed on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 (Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). Having considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties this Court is required to find out in pursuit of granting relief to the petitioner whether statutory right permits an examinee to pray for re- assessment of answer scripts. On scrutiny it is found that nothing is forthcoming conferring right upon an examinee/candidate to lay a claim for re-assessment of answer scripts. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (2) SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.). In paragraph 30.2 of Ran Vijay 3 Singh (supra) it has been succinctly decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. In the present case nothing is found on record that a material error has crept in requiring necessary direction upon the authority for doing the needful. The ratio of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra). Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner Writ petition stands dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on the usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)