1 2026:HHC:2307 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 824 of 2025 Decided on: 06 th January , 2026 ________________________________________________________ Arushi Sharma ....Appellant Versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education ...Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) In the present Letters Patent Appeal the consideration is sought of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2025 in CWP No. 14953 of 2025, titled, Arushi Sharma vs. Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the board had already undertaken the process of re-checking and the marks obtained by petitioner was increased from 73 to 86 in the subject of English. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:2307 Thereafter, the petitioner had sought her right for re-evaluation and marks were increased both in English and Computer Science by one mark each. The writ petition then came to be filed with the prayer for re-checking the papers of petitioner in the subjects of English and Computer Science by independent examiner and that she was to be awarded marks in proportion to her correct answers. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the right for re- evaluation already stood exhausted and the marks have been enhanced and therefore, the re-evaluation is not possible. Similarly, for re- checking also it was held that the directions would be against the rules and regulations and therefore relief of re-evaluation or re-checking could not be ordered by the Court. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has drawn attention to clause 13.2.12, that no further re-assessment is allowed after the award by re-evaluation is received. The same reads as under:- “13.2.12 No further re-assessment shall be allowed after the award/s by re-evaluation has/have been received. The result of re-evaluation whether favorable or unfavorable shall be binding on the candidate who applied for re-evaluation.” 3. It is settled principle that for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus there should be a statutory right for the Court to direct so. The said aspect had been highlighted by the Apex Court in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra vs. Devarsh Nath Gupta & Ors., 2023 3 2026:HHC:2307 LiveLaw (SC) 131, following the settled principle in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, that in the absence of any statutory provision, re-evaluation of answer sheet could not be directed. 4. Accordingly, on account of the fact that substantial marks have been increased in the earlier process of re-checking, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any such provision for further re-checking the relief cannot be granted, especially when the benefit of re-evaluation had already been availed thereafter and one mark each has been increased in two subjects. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference. 5. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 06 th January , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge