14 rkd 03.04.2025 Ct.18 W.P.A. 6564 of 2025 Archisman Ghosh -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Md. Kutubuddin ….for the petitioner. Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, Ms. Pratiti Das ….for the State. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Bibek Dutta ….for the WBBSE. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Petitioner being dissatisfied with awarding of marks in English and Geography in connection with petitioner’s participation in Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination), 2024 has approached this Court for reassessment of answer scripts of English and Geography. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner submits that initially petitioner was awarded 82 marks in English and 96 marks in Geography and same were subsequently enhanced from 82 to 83 and from 96 to 97. Petitioner prayed for supply of answer scripts of those two papers and the concerned authority of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education supplied copies of answer scripts to the petitioner. Petitioner made representation dated 23rd September, 2024 addressed to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education which is at page 83 of the writ petition and prayer is made for reassessment of answer scripts of those two papers in consideration of such representation. State respondents and West Bengal Board of Secondary Education are represented by learned advocates who have opposed this writ petition. Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate representing the Board on virtual mode submits that there is no statutory provision authorizing concerned authority of the Board to take steps for reassessment of answer scripts of a candidate who is successful in Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination). In consideration of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the representation dated 23rd September, 2024 it appears petitioner in effect has prayed for reassessment/reevaluation of answer scripts of English and Geography which is not permissible in terms of the relevant Examination Regulation. In absence of statutory provisions empowering the Examining Body to reassess the answer scripts mandamus cannot be issued directing that Examining Body to reassess unless a specific case is made out 2 that a material error is crept in while assessing the answer scripts. In the present case it is not demonstrated before this Court that there is any material error in awarding marks to the answer in connection with two papers that is English and Geography. 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. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) this Court finds it apt to quote paragraph 30.2 of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (supra) below: “30.2 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 rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.” Reliance is also placed on the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 23rd September, 2024 passed on an intra Court appeal being MAT 1241 of 2024 (Shrestha Samanta v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) In view of aforesaid discussion no relief can be 3 granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 4