34 04.12.2025 Ct. No.18 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 25652 of 2025 Sagnick Nandi v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Manas Kumar Das Ms. Samriddhi Nayak Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokder … For the petitioner Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty Ms. Kum Kum Das … For the State Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra Mr. Amartya Pal … For WBCHSE 1. The petitioner participated in the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 2025. He claims to be a very meritorious student and he secured 457 out of 500 marks and has an overall percentile of 99.161. 2. He raises issue with regard to the marks awarded to him in Business Studies. He got his answer script obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and re-checked and re-evaluated by teachers who teach the subject in other reputed institutions. 3. The petitioner submits that the marks awarded by the said teachers suggest that the answer given by the petitioner in the MCQ is correct. The petitioner’s answers have been erroneously marked as incorrect. 2 4. It has been submitted that one mark will make a lot of difference in the rank of the petitioner. Prayer has been made to direct re-evaluation of his Business Studies answer script. 5. In support of the submission that the Court may permit re-evaluation of answer script, the petitioner relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahiti & Ors. v. Chancellor, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599. 6. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the learned advocate representing the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. 7. 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. 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 & Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131 (paragraph 13). 3 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. On a perusal of the judgment in the matter of Sahiti (supra), it appears that the Court was of the opinion that re-evaluation may be permitted if the factual scenario so demands. 11. Upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of the documents placed before this Court, the Court is of the view that the instant case cannot be treated to be an exceptional or rare case that re-evaluation may be permitted to be conducted in the absence of statutory rules. 12. Moreover, the candidate has to place reliance on the examiners who have been given the duty of marking the answer scripts of candidates who appear in the Higher Secondary Examination. The petitioner cannot rely on the marks given by any other examiner not engaged by the authority to examine answer scripts of the examination. If such prayer of candidates is accepted, then many candidates may seek re-evaluation depending on marks awarded by teachers or private tutors who do not have the authority to examine answer scripts of the public examination. 4 13. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)