Calcutta High Court
WPA/21922/2026 of MOHOR PAL (MINOR) REPD BY HER MOTHER NAMELY MOUSHUMI PAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 23 September 2026
Item No.22 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.21922 of 2026 Mohar Pal (Minor) reptd. by her mother namely Mousumi Pal -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Saikat Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr.
23-09-2026
Item No.22
Subrata
Bhattacharyya
AR(C)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA No.21922 of 2026
Mohar Pal (Minor) reptd. by her mother namely Mousumi Pal -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saikat Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee Ms. Priyanka Shukla …for the State Mr. Suman Banerjee …for WBBSE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner appeared in the Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination), 2026. She is aggrieved by the marks awarded to her in her first language and second language papers.
2. She has obtained the answer scripts by making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On perusal of the same, she submits that she would be entitled to at least a couple of more marks.
3. On a perusal of the answer script it appears that the candidate was awarded marks in each question. The marks to be awarded to a candidate in a particular question are absolutely the discretion of the examiner. It is not open for the Court, who is not an expert body, to doubt assessment made by the examiner and question the marks awarded to a candidate.
4. Apparently, it does not appear that there has been any error in adding all the marks and all the questions have been checked by the examiner.
5. Law does not permit re-evaluation of answer scripts of a successful candidate.
6. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
7. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J]
2