The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition filed by a law student who sought the re-evaluation of her LLB First Semester answer sheets to be awarded 499 out of 500 marks. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery dismissed the petition, imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner, and reaffirmed the settled legal principle that courts should be slow to interfere in academic matters handled by experts.
Case Background
The petition, WRIT-C No. 20427 of 2024, was filed by a student of the five-year LLB course at Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. The petitioner, appearing in person, approached the court seeking a direction that she be awarded 499 out of 500 marks for her First Semester examination, alleging she was “wrongly awarded only 182 marks.”
The judgment noted that the petitioner “is a chronicle litigant” who had filed at least 10 petitions, including writ petitions, review petitions, and special appeals, between 2021 and 2022. In the present petition, she claimed she “should be awarded 100 marks in all subjects” and also made allegations of corruption against the Respondent-University.
Court-Ordered Re-examination and Party Submissions
Following a court order dated 16.01.2025, the Respondent-University constituted a committee to re-examine the petitioner’s OMR answer sheets. The committee, comprising the Head of the Law Department and two Professors, submitted its report on 22.02.2025.
According to the committee’s report, a detailed, question-by-question verification of all five OMR sheets was conducted. The report confirmed that the petitioner had obtained a “Grand Total” of 181 marks out of 500.
The petitioner, in response, submitted a detailed reply and affidavit on 17.04.2025, annexing various documents “in order to proof that wrong report has submitted by the Committee.” She contended that she was entitled to marks for questions she had attempted.
Court’s Analysis and Reliance on Precedent
Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., observed that the petitioner’s claim for 499 marks “was based on assumption without any basis whatsoever,” especially in light of the university’s re-examination report confirming her score of 181.
The Court firmly stated its jurisdictional limitations in such matters, noting, “Court cannot act as an expert to undertake such exercise to examine every question and answer marked by petitioner under writ jurisdiction.” It also found that the petitioner’s affidavit, while quoting answers, failed to specify “which question was correctly marked in OMR sheet but no marks was awarded” and did not provide the source of her answers.
The Court relied heavily on established Supreme Court precedents regarding judicial interference in academic evaluations. It cited Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan and others (2020) and extensively quoted Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018).
From the Ran Vijay Singh judgment, the Court reproduced: “31. …sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. … 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.”
Applying these principles, the High Court held that the “petitioner in person has failed to show any irregularity or illegality in re-cheking of her OMR sheet, therefore, only on basis of vague averments, Court cannot act contrary to law.”
The judgment also noted an incident during the proceedings: “At this stage, when Court was concluding the present order, the petitioner-in person kept on repeatedly disturbing the Court despite warning. She even asked the Court to recuse from the present case, which is rejected with strict oral observations.”
Final Decision and Costs
Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the Court dismissed it. Furthermore, “to discourage such litigation,” a cost of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the petitioner-in-person, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days.
In its final oral order, the Court advised the petitioner “to concentrate on her study so that she may get more marks by her honest preparation and she may not approach this Court again.”
