Marks Won’t Change Result, No Grounds To Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Revaluation Plea

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to entertain a student’s plea seeking revaluation of his answer sheet, holding that courts cannot intervene in academic matters where regulations do not permit such relief and where the outcome would not alter the result. The decision underscores judicial restraint in examination-related disputes and reiterates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass clearly framed academic rules.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Ashish Tiwari, a student pursuing a Diploma in Medical Lab Technician, who challenged his marks in the subject of Human Anatomy and Physiology. He had secured 25 out of 100 marks in the April 2025 examination conducted by the M.P. Medical Science University, Jabalpur. Contending that he had correctly answered certain questions, specifically Questions 1B and 1C, the petitioner argued that he had been wrongly awarded zero marks for those responses and sought revaluation of his answer sheet.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Arun Kumar Dwivedi submitted that the alleged error in evaluation had materially affected the petitioner’s score. On the other hand, government advocate Piyush Jain, representing the State, opposed the plea by pointing to the absence of any provision for revaluation under the applicable examination regulations.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal examined the matter and declined to grant relief. The court noted that the minimum passing marks for the subject were 36 out of 100, and the petitioner had secured only 25 marks, falling short by 11 marks. Even if some marks were hypothetically added, the petitioner would still not meet the passing threshold.

In its order, the court observed that “even if two marks are awarded to the petitioner, he will not cross the passing marks,” making the exercise of revaluation inconsequential. The bench further emphasized that there was no statutory provision permitting revaluation in the examination framework of the university. In the absence of such a provision, the court held that it could not direct the authorities to undertake a re-evaluation process.

Finding no case for interference, the Court dismissed the petition.

By dismissing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that dissatisfaction with marks, without demonstrable illegality or procedural breach, does not warrant judicial intervention. The court concluded succinctly that “there is no case for interference,” thereby bringing the proceedings to a close.

Case Title: Ashish Tiwari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 21, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal