1 / 3 2025:CGHC:55991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5893 of 2025 • Ku. Soundarya Minj D/o Shri Sunil Minj Aged About 17 Years Minor, Represented Through Father Sunil Minj S/o Yaqub Minj Aged About 46 Years, R/o Naya Pattrapara, Dharamjaigarh Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Controller Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Examination Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Secretary Central Board Of Secondary Education Government Of India, Ministry Of Education Mantralaya, New Delhi ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents-State : : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mrs. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent-CGBSE : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 18/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned Clause-5 of the order dated 03.0.2025 (Annex. P-1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 2 to accept the affected/ extended 8 marks of petitioner of Class-10th and include the same in the result of petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.20 11:03:54 +0530 2 / 3 of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner appeared in class-10th examination conducted by Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (for short “CGBSE”) for the academic session 2024-25. She secured 579 marks out of total 600 marks and dissatisfied with the marks awarded to her. She submitted an application for revaluation of marks of Social Science, Hindi, English and Sanskrit subjects. Upon revaluation, the valuer have given marks increasing 5 marks in Social Science, 2 marks in Hindi and 1 mark in English subject, thereby total 8 marks have been increased in the above subjects. However, it is informed to petitioner by order dated 25.04.2025 that there is no change in the marks. Learned counsel submits that in Clause-6 of Annexure P-1 order it is clearly mentioned that the marks will be increased/decreased even if one marks is increased or decreased in the answer sheet. However, ignoring the increase of 8 marks in the aforesaid subjects, respondents have passed an order stating that there is no change in the result. 3. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 would oppose the submission and would further submit that in page 10 of writ petition as referred and relied upon by the counsel for petitioner, Clause-5 deals with Revaluation and Clause-6 deals with Retotaling of the marks. Petitioner has applied for revaluation of marks and in Clause-5 it is clearly mentioned that according to the regulation after revaluation even if there is slight change in total marks, an increase in marks will be accepted only if the average of the marks awarded by both evaluators is 10 percent or more higher than the previous marks of subject revalued. If a decrease in marks is found in the re- evaluation, the marks will not be reduced, meaning thereby that the previous marks will remain the same. Clause-6 which is relied upon by the counsel for petitioner is with regard to retotaling of the marks. Petitioner has not applied for retotaling of the marks and it is not a case of petitioner that after 3 / 3 retotaling, total marks have slightly increased. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, grievance of petitioner is that even after increasing 8 marks after revaluation of answer sheet of Social Science, Hindi and English, Respondents No. 2 & 3 have held that there is no change in result. The examiner is Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Raipur and the conduct of examination and result are governed by regulation framed by it. According to the guideline framed by Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal Viniyam in exercise of power under Regulation 119 and 148, if the student opt for/applies for revaluation of marks then the results will only be changed if increased by 10% marks of the marks obtained in particular subject. 6. In the case at hand after revaluation, valuer awarded marks showing increase of 5 marks in Social Science making it 73 where as originally 68 marks was awarded. Comparing both the marks would show that increase of marks is less than 10%. Similarly in Hindi and English subject, petitioner originally secured 68 and 70 marks respectively and after revaluation increase of marks shown in answer sheet is 2 and 1 respectively, which again is less than 10% of secured marks in each subject. Therefore in the opinion of this Court, there is no error or irregularity committed by respondents in holding that there is no change in result of petitioner. 7. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed at admission stage. sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE