[2025:RJ-JP:13237] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5816/2014 Sidhant Pachori S/o Shri Sanjay Sharma, Aged About 18 Years, Through Father Shri Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijay Shankar Sharma, Age About 48 Years, R/o 248, Adarsh Colony, Kherli Phatak, Kota (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. Dy. Director (Secrete), Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 24/03/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that action of the respondent in reducing the petitioner’s marks in subject Hindi of class 12th is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and a direction be issued to them to restore his original marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards his answer book of subject Hindi of class 12th (Annexure-2), would submit that initially, he was awarded higher marks in the questions No.3 to 7; however, later on, the same were reduced without any rhyme and reason. He submits that in view thereof, the original marks awarded to him deserve to be restored. [2025:RJ-JP:13237] (2 of 3) [CW-5816/2014] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the prayer, submits that a perusal of the answer book of the petitioner does not give any such inference that initially, he was awarded higher marks in the questions No.3 to 7 which were later on reduced. He submits that the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7778/2014: Ajeet Singh Kaim Vs. The Education Secretary, involving identical controversy, a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2015, dismissed the same. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Although, a perusal of the subject answer book of the petitioner reveals that the marks initially awarded in some of the questions were altered but, there is nothing on record to warrant an inference that the higher marks were awarded initially, which were, later on, reduced. Even otherwise, in the case of Ajeet Singh Kaim (supra) wherein also, a similar controversy was raised by the petitioner, this Court proceeded to hold as under: “The case set up by the petitioner is indeed extra ordinary. Marking of an answer- sheet is a matter for experts - which an examiner in the subject concerned is. The Board has issued detailed instructions with regard to the uniformity of standards and consistency in marking by the examiner. Within the instructions issued by the Board the examiner has a subjective satisfaction to award marks. Nothing can be made out from an examiner first giving a mark and on reconsideration holding it to be incorrect and not reflective of the mark [2025:RJ-JP:13237] (3 of 3) [CW-5816/2014] which the student is deserving in terms of quality of his answers and standards of uniformity in assessment required by the Board. And thereafter re-marking the examinee. This cannot constitute revaluation which counsel for the Board rightly pointed out is wholly difficult entailing evaluation by a different examiner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth etc., 1984 AIR 1543 has held that the writ courts should be slow in interfering in academic matters and leave such matters to the fair discretion of the expert. No case of malice is alleged or made out in this case. The process of evaluation by the Board is completely secret with the examiner having no idea as to the student under his evaluation. Dissatisfaction with a mark is no cause of action. I find no force in the petition. Accordingly dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) In the backdrop of the aforesaid presidential law, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J GAURAV/29