- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 13246 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ADITHYA P., SON OF PRAVEEN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.460, 16TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. 2. TRISHA SHRISHA DAUGHTER OF SHRISHA BATWARAHALLI SRIPATHY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1699, 3RD FLOOR, 7TH MAIN, E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SHRISHA BATWARAHALLI SRIPATHY 3. SHASHANK V., SON OF VASANTHA KUMAR M., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11, MAHADESHWARA NAGAR, HEROHALLI CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023. 4. POOJA SINGH R., DAUGHTER OF B. RAJESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, VENKATADRI NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, SRS ROAD, PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN H. UMA Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 5. BHAVANI N., DAUGHTER OF NEELAKANTA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.14, SRI NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA, 11TH CROSS, GOKUL 2ND MAIN, LCR SCHOOL ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN NEELAKANTA SWAMY, 6. HARSHIT MUGALI SON OF ARUN MUGALI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.88/6, 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO.002, DOLLARS SCHEMES, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096 7. J. VIKRANTH, SON OF C. JAGANATHAN, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.87, 4TH A MAIN, CHANDRA LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU – 560 091 8. P. KUSHAL SON OF LD PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4382, 2ND FLOOR, 14TH MAIN A BLOCK, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 021. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN LD PRASAD 9. JEEVAN BS SON OF SHASHIDHARA BS, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.293, 6TH CROSS, BAGALGUNTE, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 073. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 10. SUDARSHAN K., SON OF KARTHIK N., AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, PLATFORM ROAD, CORPORATION QUARTERS, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020. 11. GS AKSHAY KASHYAP SON OF GK SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.110, 10TH MAIN, MEI COLONY, LAGGERE, PEENYA 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 058. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN GK SHIVASHANKAR 12. MANISHA D DAUGHTER OF DHANANJAYA N., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1915/12, 3RD CROSS, PRASHANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN DHANANJAYA N. 13. THANUSHREE H., DAUGHTER OF HANUMANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.P24, ADAKAMARANAHALLI, MAKALI, BENGALURU – 562 123. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN HANUMANTHARAJU 14. DARSHAN O., SON OF OMKARESHWARA S., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11, TG HALLI, ANCHEPALAYA, BENGALURU – 560 073. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN OMKARESHWARA S., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 15. TAMIL SELVI ANBALAGAN DAUGHTER OF ANBALAGAN, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/123, KOLAGATHUR, K. NADUHALLI, DHARMAPURI – 636 809. 16. BALAJI YADAV SON OF BABURAM YADAV, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20 AND 21, SAIBABA NAGAR, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 091. 17. TULSI VIJAY RAGHAVAN DAUGHTER OF VIJAY RAGHVAN, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT 25, 1ST FLOOR, 13TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY H. SETHIYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (PRE-UNIVERSITY), 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 3. KARNATAKA SCHOOL EXAMINATION AND ASSESSMENT BOARD 6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 4. VIDYA MANDIR IND. PU COLLEGE 11TH CROSS, WEST PARK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD TO IMMEDIATELY RECTIFY THE INTERNAL ASSESSMENT MARKS OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE LETTER DATED 09.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE AT ANNEXURE-B TO B16 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent Board to immediately rectify the internal assessment marks of the Petitioners as per the letter dated 09.04.2025 issued by the college at Annexures-B to B-16; (b) Direct the 3rd Respondent Board to issue fresh corrected II PUC Marks cards to the petitioners within a fixed time period of one(1) week from the date of the order; (c) Set aside the Notification dated 12.12.2024 as in Annexure-D as arbitrary and invalid; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 (d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioners are students who passed II PUC examination conducted in March, 2025 and results of the petitioners were declared on 08.04.2025, which indicates that the petitioners had passed in all the subjects. However, the Internal Assessment Marks were incorrectly given as enumerated / detailed in para 7 of the memorandum of writ petition, pursuant to which, respondent No.4 – college submitted a representation to 3rd respondent – Board admitting their mistake along with correct Internal Assessment Marks and requested 3rd respondent – Board to make necessary corrections. In addition thereto, petitioner also submitted representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 requesting them to take necessary steps to rectify the inadvertent mistake of 4th respondent – college. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 taking any steps to rectify the error in the marks sheet / marks card shown in the final result of the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 – college on instructions submits that it is true that due to oversight and inadvertence, 4th respondent – college had given wrong and incorrect marks in the marks sheet of the petitioners uploaded in the portal of 3rd respondent – Board and necessary directions may be issued to 3rd respondent – Board to carryout necessary corrections in this regard. 5. Learned AGA submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and submit that the State Government Circular / Notification at Annexure-D dated 20.01.2025 prohibits change of marks and the guidelines issued by the State Government in its proceedings dated 10.07.2023 at clause – 16 makes the respective colleges responsible for uploading internal assessment marks and as such, there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner had obtained correct internal assessment marks given by the 4th respondent – College which had incorrectly uploaded and sent incorrect / erroneous / wrong marks to the 3rd respondent – Board which had declared the results of the petitioner based on the incorrect / erroneous / wrong marks sent / uploaded by the 4th respondent – College. This fact is not only borne out from the declaration of internal assessment marks by the 4th respondent – College but also categorical admission made by the said college that though the petitioners had obtained higher internal assessment marks which were obviously / undisputedly conducted by the 4th respondent – college and not by respondents 1 to 3 and it was only on account of the wrong uploading / sending of the marks by the 4th respondent – college to the 3rd respondent – Board which has resulted in incorrect / lesser marks being shown in the results of the petitioners declared by the Board. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the material on record which clearly indicates that the revised / corrected marks submitted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 / stated by the 4th respondent – college admitting its mistake and stating that there were typographical errors committed by it while originally submitting / uploading the marks to the 3rd respondent – P.U. Board, the petitioners cannot be held to be responsible / liable for the said mistake committed and admitted by the 4th respondent – college warranting interference in the present petition, especially having regard to the future of the students which will be adversely affected on account of their internal assessment marks being shown as lesser in the results on account of admitted / undisputed mistake committed by the 4th respondent – college. 8. 8. The contention of the State that in view of the Circular / Notification at Annexure-D dated 20.01.2025, change of marks was not permissible cannot be accepted since the same would not apply to typographical / clerical / arithmetical errors / mistakes committed by the 4th respondent – College in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Srikanth B.S. vs. The Registrar and another – W.P.No.21496/2024 Dated 16.01.2025, wherein it is held as under:- The petitioner is seeking to quash the letter dated 06.07.2024 issued by respondent No.1-Bangalore University at Annexure-L and consequently direct the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 respondent No.1 to correct the marks as claimed in the letter dated 17.04.2024 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-K. 2. Brief facts that led to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner enrolled in the BCA course at Acharya Institute of Graduate Studies. Respondent No.2 completed the BCA course in August 2021. The petitioner passed the I Semester with one subject “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” in June-July 2021 with 22 marks in the internal assessment and the provision result declared showed “clear in that subject”, the same can be found place at Annexure-P of the writ petition. The petitioner later on appeared for the Karnataka Examination Authority’s, Post Graduate Common Entrance Test (PGCET) for MBA admission, the petitioner completed his MBA in digital marketing and was awarded MBA certificate. The petitioner was issued a study certificate by the Acharya Institute on 27.12.2021. However, the I and the VI semester marks card were not issued despite several requests and the petitioner made a representation to the institute for the I and VI semester marks card. It was at that time, the petitioner found that the internal assessment marks for the subject “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” were entered incorrectly as ‘12’ instead of ‘22’, which the petitioner had originally secured. This being the fact the respondent No.2-college sought to correct the mistake by writing a letter to respondent No.1 – Bangalore University on 07.04.2024. The respondent No.1 issued an endorsement / letter refusing to correct the internal - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 assessment marks on the ground that once the internal marks was submitted in the year 2017, no changes could be made, which finds place at Annexure-L. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Bangalore University is before this court. 3. Statement of facts have been filed by respondent No.2-college stating and admitting that the petitioner had secured 22 marks out of 30 marks in the internal assessment in the I semester of BCA for the subject i.e., “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” by the respondent No.2-College and in respect of the internals conducted by the respondent No.1-University, petitioner had scored 25 marks out of 70 marks, thereby securing a total of 47 marks out of 100 marks in the said subject. It is stated that the petitioner completed the BCA course during the month August 2021 with II Class and the petitioner approached respondent No.2 seeking issuance of original marks card of the I and VI semester stating that the petitioner needs the original marks card for the purpose of securing MBA seat with another institution. In the meantime, to facilitate the procedure for securing the MBA seat, this respondent issued a provisional degree certificate and a study certificate dated 27.12.2021 to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the college for the original marks card and degree certificate. It is at that time, the respondent informed the petitioner that the same has not received by the college and necessary enquiry was done with respondent No.1-University seeking clarification on the dispatch of the pending marks card of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 the students including that of the petitioner. At that time, it was informed by the University that the petitioner had failed in one of the subject’s of the I Semester i.e., “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” and the University cannot issue the marks card. It was at that time, the college noticed that at the time of preparing the list of internal marks obtained by the students, due to technical mishap / typographical error in respect of the petitioner, the internal assessment marks for the said subject was wrongly entered as ‘12’ instead of ‘22’, which made respondent No.2 to write a letter to the University stating that an error was committed on the part of the respondent No.2, in which the uploading of internal assessment marks was ‘12’ instead of ‘22’ and sought for necessary corrections. It is specifically stated by respondent No.2 that the said mistake is on the part of the college and it is a typographical error committed at the time of uploading the final list. 4. Respondent No.1 filed statement of objections inter alia contending that there is a delay in approaching the court and the petition needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner has not cleared the BCA semester I exam “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” and the petitioner is having shortage of 3 marks for the required minimum passing marks of 40 and he has failed in the said exam and accordingly, his degree certificate is not issued by respondent No.1-University. It is further stated that there is no provision under the Examination Ordinance, 2011 approved by the Chancellor that under no circumstances - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 the marks sent after the declaration of the results shall be accepted and it is on that ground the letter seeking for correction of the marks of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied of a fair opportunity as the correction of the internal marks was not due to the fault of the petitioner but due to the fault on the part of respondent No.2 itself and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. It is stated that the respondents are borne by their administrative duties to correct the factual errors and provide accurate marks to the petitioner. Taking this court through the provisional marks card issued by respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was awarded internal assessment marks score of ‘22’ as against ‘12’, which was sent by the respondent to the University, which is nothing but a typographical error and the error caused is by the college and the respondent No.1 was under the duty to correct the same. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 takes the similar stand as taken by him in his statement of facts stating that the sending of score for the internal assessment was due to typographical error and the petitioner is rightly entitled for ‘22’ marks as held in the provisional marks card. 7. Respondent No.1-University justifying the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 submits that there is no provision in the Ordinance to make any such - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 rectification even if it is a technical mishap or a technical error. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question that falls for consideration is: “whether necessary direction to respondent No.1 needs to be accorded in the present facts and circumstances of this case?” 9. The petitioner is seeking direction to the University – respondent No.1 to correct the error in the internal assessment marks as per the representation made by the college. The Regulation governing the choice based credit system (semester scheme in under graduate and integrated master’s degree programs to the faculties of arts, science and commerce) issued by the Bangalore University at clause 10.7, which reads as under: “The internal assessment marks shall be published on the notice board of the department / college for information of the students”. (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Examination Ordinance, 2011 point No.17 and 18 read as under: 17. Not sending the sessional / term work / project work / internal assessment marks/grading before the commencement of theory examination – Impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- per student on college. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 18. In case marks are sent after commencement of theory examination and before announcement of results – impose penalty of rs.25,000/- per student on college. 11. Neither the Regulations nor the Examination Ordinance, 2001 state about there being any prohibition for any correction of the typographical or clerical errors in the internal assessment marks or any marks which has been due to the error and which has been acknowledged by the college. 12. The refusal of the Bangalore University – respondent No.1 to correct the internal marks is based on a rigid and outdated interpretation of the examination without considering that the respondent No.2-College has categorically stated that there is a mistake, error, mishap and typographical error on part of the college. The internal mark was mistakenly recorded and this clerical error on part of the college cannot make the petitioner to be liable and penalize the petitioner especially when the college of the petitioner has acknowledged for correct of marks. The provisional list clearly shows that the petitioner – student secured ‘22’ marks sufficient to pass the exam. The mistake of sending the marks of the petitioner as score 12 by the college is a mistake on their part. Due to the error committed by the college, the students result reflects in failure in I Semester BCA, which has a broader academic and career implication. The University’s denial to correct the marks on the basis of “no provision for correction” is totally unjustified. The error being not on part of the student - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 and correcting the marks enures fairness. The courts time and again have taken a sympathetic view in the matters affecting the students’ career. In the said circumstances and for the reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this court pass the following: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement issued at Annexure-L is set aside. (iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to correct the marks as per the letter submitted by the college at Annexure-K and issue the marks card of I and VI Semester BCA forthwith.” 9. Insofar as the contention of the State that as per clause – 16 of the Government Guidelines at Annexure-R1 dated 10.07.2023, it is impermissible to change the marks once they are uploaded is concerned, a perusal of the said Guidelines including clause -1 6 will indicate that the same merely mandates / stipulates that the respective colleges have to upload the marks of the students and the entire responsibility in this regard is cast upon the college – authorities; the said guidelines including clause No.16 do not apply to the facts of the instant case as regards incorrect uploading of marks by the college authorities and the same would be applicable only if the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24851 WP No. 13246 of 2025 marks were not uploaded at all and consequently, the said contention of the respondents – State cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the concerned respondent Nos.1 to 3 to carry out necessary corrections in the marks card / marks sheet of the petitioners in relation to Internal Assessment Marks and issue fresh marks sheet / marks card in favour of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The concerned respondents 1 to 3 are directed to carryout necessary corrections in the marks sheets, marks cards etc., in relation to the internal assessment marks of the petitioners in terms of Annexure- B series submitted by 4th respondent – College to respondents 1 to 3 and issue fresh marks sheets, marks cards, etc., in favour of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS/SRL: List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1