JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta, J. – Petitioner is seeking appropriate order/direction upon the respondents to revaluate the answer sheet of Physics paper of the petitioner and to allot marks for Question No. 26(B) & (C) which was not checked and for allocation of marks with respect to Question Nos. 8, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 as marks have been allotted only for part of the question and other parts have not been checked nor marks have been allotted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had written that petitioner appeared for Class-XII examination as a student of Jawahar Vidya Mandir, Shyamli, Ranchi in 2016. The examination was held by the respondents, i.e., Central Board of Secondary Examination (CBSE). That the petitioner has been allocated the marks which are as follows :- Sub Code Subject Marks Obtained Total in Words Positional Grade Theory Practical Total 301 English Core 090 Xxx 090 Ninety A1 041 Mathematics 093 Xxx 093 Ninety Three A1 042 Physics 046 028 074 Seventy Four B2 043 Chemistry 065 030 095 Ninety Five A1 044 Biology 067 030 097 Ninety Seven A1 That the petitioner was shocked to know that she had obtained only 74 marks in Physics where-after she applied for scrutiny of the answer sheet for which she deposited the requisite fee for scrutiny of the paper. That by letter dated 04.06.2016, the respondents intimated that her marks were evaluated and additional 1 mark was allocated and the petitioner was directed to deposit the earlier mark sheet for issuance of fresh mark sheet. That the petitioner on 05.06.2016 again applied for supply of the answer books and paid Rs. 700/- through e-challan. That answer sheets were downloaded which are annexed at Annexure-1 series. That it would be evident from page 61 to to 63 that no marks were allocated neither the answer was checked and in some questions, part of the answer was checked and other part was left unchecked resulting in non allocation of marks for the questions and marks were also not allotted for the attempted questions. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, i.e., C.B.S.E submitted that the petitioner filed the application after the lapse of the prescribed date, hence the Board did not entertain the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, i.e., C.B.S.E submitted that the petitioner filed the application after the lapse of the prescribed date, hence the Board did not entertain the same. Secondly, she had applied for verification of marks and not for re-evaluation neither the requisite fee for reevaluation was deposited hence, the relief sought in the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Having heard learned counsels and on going through the Annexure-1 series particularly, the answer sheets enclosed at page 24 to 63, it is evident that from page 61 to 63 that the answers were not checked neither any marks was allocated. It is amply clear that in some of the questions, part of the answer was checked and part of answer was left unchecked. It is abundantly clear that the respondents have not checked the entire answer sheets and the petitioner has been deprived of the entitled marks. In the attending facts the respondents are directed to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner shall file the application afresh, with the requisite fee (as provided in the rules of the CBSE), and the respondent No. 2 shall re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner and provide fresh mark sheet to the petitioner in accordance to the rules, within 16 weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. 6. With the said direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.