Calcutta High Court
WPA/4963/2026 of MITHU BOXI MIDYA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 12 August 2026
Item no.D/L 21 Court No. 24 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 4963 of 2026 In the matter of : Mithu Boxi Midya …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Ms.
12.08.2026
Item no.D/L 21
Court No. 24
Pradip, A.R.(Ct.)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Case No.
WPA 4963 of 2026
In the matter of:
Mithu Boxi Midya
…. Petitioner
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
….Respondents
For the Petitioner:
Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal)
….Advocate
For the WBBSE:
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
Mr. Bibek Dutta
Mr. Manas Bhattacharyya
….Advocates
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 son of the petitioner appeared in the Madhyamik Examination- 2025. He applied for scrutiny of the answer scripts of her son. The answer scripts were scrutinized. After scrutiny, the marks obtained by the son of the petitioner remained unchanged.
2. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for reevaluation of the marks.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the answers of the son of the petitioner are correct but the examiner did not award any marks.
4. Prayer has been made to direct the Board to reevaluate the marks of the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate representing the Board submits that there is no law which permits reevaluation of answer scripts of a successful candidate.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to produce any law which permits reevaluation of marks of the Madhyamik Examination in respect of a successful candidate.
Page 2
7. It is settled law that the Court, not being an expert body, ought not to pass any comment on the evaluation of the answer scripts scrutinized by the examining body. The same lies within the domain of the examiner.
8. As the petitioner has failed to show any law in support of the prayer made, accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed.
9. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
11. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)