IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Ml- 339 rkd 12.08.2025 Ct.18 DM W.P.A. 5059 of 2024 Sri Srijan Kumar Barik -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Usha Maiti, Mr. Sakya Maity ….for the petitioner. Mr. Sirsanya Banopadhyay, Ms. Tapati Samanta ….for the State. Mr. Kunal Ganguly ….for the Board. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner is the father of an examinee who participated in Madhyamik Pariksha, 2023. 3. Student performed very well in the foresaid examination and was awarded 682 marks out of 900. However, student was not satisfied with the marks awarded to him in Bengali and Life Science which prompted the petitioner to apply under Right to Information Act before the concerned authority of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education seeking supply of authenticated copies of answer scripts of those two subjects. 4. In response to application under Right to Information Act authenticated copies of answer scripts were supplied to the petitioner and copies of those answer scripts are annexed to this writ petition. 5. Learned advocate representing the petitioner has made an endeavour to demonstrate that while evaluating some answers of Life Science and Bengali there were overwriting without any endorsement or signature by the examiner requiring reevaluation of answer scripts by a different examiner. 6. Prayer made by the petitioner is opposed by the learned advocate representing West Bengal Board of Secondary Education being examining body since there is no statutory provision which permits successful candidate of Madhyamik Pariksha to apply for reevaluation of answer scripts. 7. Reliance is placed on answer to question No.3.3.2 of Bengali paper in order to demonstrate that answers were not properly evaluated and there was overwriting. 8. On perusing answer to question no.3.2.2 it appears that there is overwriting but at the same time it also appears that there is no difficulty in understanding the marks allotted to the candidate 2 by the examiner. 9. It is not the case of erroneous scrutiny or any answer is left without allotting marks. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in evaluating answers by the examiner. 10. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the 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 Singh (supra) it has been succinctly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a Statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet then the Court may permit reevaluation 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. 11. While considering the case made out in this writ petition and looking at the answers written by the petitioner which were evaluated by the examiner it does not appear that any material error was committed by the examiner. 12. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 13. The writ petition stands dismissed. 14. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 3 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 4