Mokshika Sahu (Minor) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:56397

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5842 of 2025

¶6

1 - Mokshika Sahu (Minor) D/o Shri Somprakash Sahu Aged About 16 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Somprakash Sahu, S/o Tiharu Ram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Bhelwakuda, Post Rampur, Tehsil Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Secretary, Having Office At Pension Bada, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Registrar, Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Having Office At Pension Bada, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondent/State No.1 : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 and 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶16

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.22 10:36:04 +0530

¶17

19/11/2025

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶20

2

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Respondent No.3, in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to recalculate the marks of petitioner in English and Hindi and issue fresh marksheet, in the interest of justice..

¶23

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted”

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner participated in the High School Certificate Examination, 2025 organized by respondent No.2, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. After declaration of results, petitioner secured 584 (97.3%) marks out of 600 marks. Petitioner was confident that she might have secured more marks according to paper attempted by her and dissatisfied with the marks published by respondent No.2, she submitted an application for providing photocopies of the answer papers of Hindi and English subject. After receipt of photocopies of answer-sheets of Hindi and English subject written by her, she revealed that there is mistake in totaling of marks. In English subject, she was awarded 70 marks instead of 71. Likewise, in Hindi subject, 69 marks was awarded instead of 70. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application for recounting/retotaling of the same vide letter dated 29.08.2025 before respondent No.2, however, respondents No.2 and 3 refused to increase the marks on the ground that marks stated to be increased is less than 10% of the marks secured in particular subject vide letter dated 11.09.2025. The decision taken by respondents No.2 and 3 is

¶25

3

¶26

erroneous and in contravention of the Clause-6 of the guidelines issued vide order dated 25.04.2025 in this regard.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 would submit that entire case as projected by petitioner is that she applied for retotaling/recounting of marks which is not correct. Petitioner to support her case has relied upon the order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) in particular Clause-6 of the guidelines, which is not applicable to the facts of the case instead Clause-5 would apply as petitioner has submitted an application for providing photocopies of answer sheet of Hindi and English subject and also made a prayer for its revaulation and not retotaling. He also contended that the application in the prescribed formate submitted by petitioner clearly mentions in front of Hindi subject as RV & PC, which means revaluation and photocopy, accordingly in English subject also similar prayer is made. According to Clause-5, if after revaluation, it is found that there is increase of 10% or more in the awarded marks in particular subject then only the increase of marks is to be made in the mark-sheet and if it is less than 10% then there will be no change in result. In support of his contention, he referred to Clause-5 of the guidelines. He also placed photocopy of document forwarded to him by respondents No.2 an 3 in support of his contention before this Court for perusal.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Case projected by petitioner is that petitioner has submitted an application for retotaling of marks of English and Hindi subject relying

¶30

4

¶31

upon Clause-6 of guidelines issued vide order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-5). Clause-6 provides that if at the time of retotaling of marks there is increase or decrease of even one number then it is to be accordingly corrected. Whereas Clause-5 provides for change of result only when after revaluation, marks awarded by revaluer increasesd 10% of marks already awarded.

¶32

From the pleadings made in the writ petition it is apparent that according to case of petitioner there is increase of one marks in English paper and one marks in Hindi paper and the marks secured originally was 70 and 69 respectively. Increase of marks of 10% according to Clause-5 of guidelines would be 7 or more or 6.9 or more respectively, whereas, increase in both the papers is of only one marks.

¶33

In the aforementioned facts of the case and the guidelines framed by Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal in exercise of powers under Regulation 119 and 148, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in this writ petition.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶36

Balram

Mokshika Sahu (Minor) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mokshika Sahu (Minor) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshanlal Chahal Vs Panchram @ Pancham Kewat And Ors.

Chand Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raghuvansh Tiwari (in Person) Vs Commissioner

Nand Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bilal Husain Vs Union of India

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sahashram