33 04.12.2025 Ct. No.18 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 25322 of 2025 Adrija Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ekramul Bari Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin Mr. Alauddin Ahmed … For the petitioner Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, AGP Ms. Sushmita Chatterjee … For the State Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra Mr. Amartya Pal … For the WBCHSE 1. The petitioner appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination conducted in the year 2025 and secured 487 marks. She is aggrieved with the marks awarded to her in Education and Geography. A post-publication scrutiny was sought for but there has been no change in the marks awarded to the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed annexing photocopy of the answer scripts forwarded to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It has been pointed out that, more or less, all the answers of the Geography paper have been penned through and lower marks given. 3. The petitioner submits that had she been awarded one more mark, she would have qualified as 10th successful candidate in the examination. 2 4. Prayer has been made to re-assess the marks in respect of certain questions in Education and Geography. 5. The petitioner in support of the submission that in exceptional cases, writ court possesses the power to direct re-valuation, relies upon the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 663. 6. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the learned advocate representing the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. It has been submitted that there is no rule permitting re-evaluation of the answer script of a candidate. There are lakhs of candidates who appear in the Higher Secondary Examination every year and the allegation of mala fide cannot be taken to be proper. 7. It has also been submitted that despite there being no provision for re-evaluation, the Council again verified the answer scripts of the petitioner and did not find any change therein. The marks of the answers which have been penned through disclose a proper reasoning for the same. 8. The Council relies on the judgment dated 14th February, 2023 delivered in Civil Appeal No.1141 of 2023 (Arising from SLP(C) No.27252/2019) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra v. Devarsh Nath Gupta & 3 Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131 (paragraph 13). 9. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by this Court on 10th March, 2023 in WPA 4541 of 2019 (Ankur Manna v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) in support of the submission that the Court cannot permit re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of any statutory provision. 10. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the documents annexed to the writ petition. Though it appears that marks awarded to several answers have been penned through and lower marks have been awarded, but, admittedly, some reason or the other has been mentioned for the same. It appears that the answer scripts of the petitioner were scrutinized twice and no change was found. 11. The Courts have all along deprecated the practice of directing the authorities to re-evaluate answer scripts in the absence of statutory provision. 12. The Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit or a rare case permitting re-evaluation in the absence of statutory provisions. 13. The ratio laid down in the matter of Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (supra) cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 14. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. 4 15. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)