12. 12. 18.02.2025 18.02.2025 Ct. No. 18 (ARPAN) W.P.A. 2088 of 2025 Rimita Mukherjee (Minor), Represented by her legal guardian and father Vivekananda Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Sk. Sahjahan Ali …for the Petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal …for the State Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Bibek Dutta Ms. Keya Panja …for W.B.B.S.E Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Petitioner participated in Madhyamik Pariksha, 2024 and after publication of result application was made for post publication scrutiny in different subjects. In History paper 2 marks have been enhanced on scrutiny. Subsequently on receipt of answer scripts petitioner has filed the present writ petition for re- evaluation of answer scripts of Life Science and Physical Science since petitioner is not satisfied with the marks awarded to her in those two subjects. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is opposed by the learned advocate representing the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education since there is no statutory provision permitting a successful candidate to pray for re-evaluation of answer scripts. During course of hearing nothing has been shown from which it can be inferred that petitioner has 2 got statutory right to pray for re-assessment of answer scripts. Opportunity is given to the learned advocate representing the petitioner to demonstrate where is the discrepancy in awarding marks in those two aforesaid subjects which requires re-assessment. Reply of the learned advocate representing the petitioner is found to be un-satisfactory. In absence of statutory provisions, prayer for re- assessment of answer scripts as prayed for in this writ petition cannot be acceded to. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (2) SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.). In Paragraph 30.2 it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court if a Statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. In the present case since no material error is found after hearing the learned advocate representing the petitioner, the present case is not coming under the 3 exception carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 30.2 in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. (supra). With the above observations, writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)