1 2025:CGHC:56868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6122 of 2025 Honey Vishwakarma D/o Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma Aged About 19 Years R/o Dattatrey Colony, Post Pendraroad, Distt. G.P.M., C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, C.G. 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education, Raipur Through Its Secretary, Pension Bada, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent no. 1-State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Justice Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 24.11.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to provide the petitioner’s evaluated answer sheet and model answers for “Elements of Science” within a time-bound manner. 10.2 Issue a writ directing fresh re-valuation of the petitioner's answer sheet by an independent expert, considering the pattern of errors in other cases, and to apply grace marks (up to 8) if the re-evaluated score qualifies her for a pass under Board rules. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.27 12:06:12 +0530 2 10.3 Direct respondent no. 2 to refund the revaluation fee of Rs. 500 paid by the petitioner, as the mark increase confirms Board error. 10.4 Issue a writ directing respondent no. 2 to formulate and implement a policy for refunding revaluation fees in all cases where marks increase post-revaluation, to prevent exploitation of students and ensure accountability for evaluation errors. 10.5 Award compensation of Rs. 5,00,000(five lakhs rupees) to the petitioner for mental agony, loss of academic year, and career opportunities due to the respondents’ negligent valuation process and fee policy. 10.6 Grant any other relief as deemed fit, including costs of the petition and directions for systemic improvements in CGBSE’s evaluation and fee refund processes.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner participated in Class 12th examination. After declaration of result on 07.05.2025, petitioner upon finding that marks appears to have been awarded less, he submitted an application for re-evaluation of answer sheets of above subject. The results of re-evaluation was declared on 27.06.2025 and only thereafter, petitioner realized that there is some mistake in award of marks. He thereafter applied for photocopy of answer sheet of the aforementioned subject which it is not provided and was rejected mentioning that application is barred by limitation. He further submits that application is filed within 15 days from the publication of the result of re-evaluation and therefore, it is on time. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposes the submission made by counsel for petitioner and would submit that, from the documents enclosed along with this writ petition Annexure P-3 it is apparent that time limit to submit application for revaluation, retotaling or photocopy of answer sheet prescribed is of 15 days i.e. from the declaration of main result which was declared on 07.05.2025. The petitioner or any of the candidate are having three options of getting answer sheet of particular subject to be re-totaled, revalued and also can obtain photocopy of answer sheets of particular subject. The student/candidate can apply for all the three or any one of them by one application immediately after declaration of main result. 15 days time is to be calculated from the date of publication of result. Petitioner for the reasons best known to him has applied only for revaluation of paper of 3 Elements of Science and Math and for no other purpose. According to the petitioner re-evaluation of answer sheet has been done and two numbers have been increased. There is no arbitrariness in the decision taken by respondent no. 2, as decision is taken according to order dated 25.04.2025 Annexure P-3, which also provides for the procedure. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-3 would show that limitation for making an application for re-evaluation, re-totaling and for copy of answer sheet is 15 days from the date of publication of result which is the result of main examination. Clause 3 of procedure prescribed in the order clearly mentions that at a time candidate can apply for either of one or of all three. The petitioner has opted only for re-evaluation of answer sheet of “element of science and math” and not for re-totaling of answer sheet or photocopy of the same. The respondents by order dated 25.04.2025 have fixed time limitation for making an application, and that to have given an opportunity to submit an application for re- evaluation, re-totaling and for photocopy of answer sheet at a time or any one of it. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case when the petitioner has not opted for photocopy of answer sheet within a specified time in the opinion of this Court respondent no. 2 has not committed any error of law or acted arbitrarily in rejecting the application submitted by petitioner for supply of photocopy of answer sheet of “Elements of Science and Math” subject. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza