APHC010015882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.1031 of 2026 Between: 1. G RANZITH, S/O G. SUNDARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN ( FATHER) SUNDARA RAO S/O G. POLAIAH RIO HO. NO. 30/56, REVENUE QUARTERS, NANDYAL-518501, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI ,110011. 2. THE RASHTRIYA INDIAN MILITARY COLLEGE RIMC, REP BY ITS COMMANDANT, RIMC) DOON VALLEY, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the. nature writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not valuing the petitioners answer sheets properly and not awarding full marks allotted to the questions constitute a gross violation of the principles of fair play and transparency in public examinations and declare the same arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India., and consequently direct the respondents to conduct a formal re- evaluation of the Mathematics and English answer scripts of the petitioner with Roll No APB019 specifically for Question Nos. 23 and 28 in Mathematics paper, Question No. 8(a), in English paper and allot correct marks and declare him qualified and eligible for admission in to the 8th standard in the Rashtriya Indian 2 Military College (RIMC) , Dehradun, Uttarakandand grant such other relief as may be deemed .just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AKHIL KRISHNAN CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "…. to pass orders particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not valuing the petitioner’s answer sheets properly and not awarding full marks allotted to the questions constitute a gross violation of the principles of fair play and transparency in public examinations and declare the same arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to conduct a formal re-evaluation of the Mathematics and English answer scripts of the petitioner with Roll No APB019 specifically for Question Nos.23 and 28 in Mathematics paper, Question No.8(a), in English paper and allot correct marks and declare him qualified and eligible for admission in to the 8th standard in the Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC), Dehradun, Uttarakand and grant such other relief as may be deemed .just and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass such other orders….." 2. The son of the writ petitioner submitted an application for admission into 8th standard at the Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC), Dehradun, Uttarakhand, which is run by the 1st respondent and administered by the 2nd respondent. The respondents announced the results on 13.08.2025, wherein the petitioner secured 261 marks, wherefore, the student is unable to secure a seat in 8th class in RIMC. 4 3. The writ petitioner contends that the respondents did not evaluate the answer script properly and granted insufficient marks, particularly for question Nos. 23 and 28 in the Mathematics subject. 4. Consequently, the present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents in not evaluating the Mathematics paper and not awarding full marks assigned to the question No.23 as significant violation of the principles of fair play and transparency in public examinations. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare that this action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and prayed to direct the respondents to conduct a formal re-evaluation of the Mathematics answer sheet of the student with Roll No.APB019, specifically regarding Question No’s. 23 and 28. 5. The learned counsel for the student primarily emphasised on Question No. 23 and did not pursue regarding Question No. 28. 6. On 06.04.2026, this Court on the willingness expressed by both learned counsels for the student and the respondents, referred Question No.23 to three experts, viz., Sandeep Koushik, Kamlesh Vipin Joshi, and K.Y.Narayana. Expert K.Y.Narayana opined in favour of the 5 respondents, whereas the other two experts did not express a definitive opinion. 7. Regardless, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that classes have already commenced and the academic year will conclude by 15th May, 2026, stating that the petitioner's case cannot be considered at this point. However, he suggested that any application or representation filed by the student which would be considered by the respondents. 8. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the student, responding to the suggestion of the learned counsel for the respondents, requested this Court to direct the respondents to consider the representation filed by the writ petitioner dated 12.03.2026, which is pending. This representation is made to consider the student’s candidature for admission in the event of any seat vacancies arising for the January 2026 term. 9. As the experts did not reach a consensus and had given inconsistent or different opinions for Question No.23, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.03.2026 promptly. 6 10. With the consent of both learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.03.2026 regarding the student’s candidature for admission in the light of any seat vacancies that may arise for January 2026, preferably, within a period of 7 (seven) days from the receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.04.2026 Note: Issue cc by 06.05.2026 B/O siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.1031 of 2026 Date: 30.04.2026 siva