JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition is filed by a minor student who has taken his Madhyamik Examination in the year 2016 challenging the deduction in marks in the subject of English (2nd Language) conducted by the West Board of Secondary Education. 2. On the basis of an application submitted by the petitioner by way of Right to Information Act, the true copy of the answer sheet was supplied to him. Upon direction the Head Examiner has filed his report wherein he justifies the deduction of two marks for the answers to Question No. 3(a)(i) and 3 (a) (ii) (‘1’ mark for each). As per his report the Scrutiny Officer had noticed the mistakes in the answers and under his direction the Scrutiny Officer changed the marks. He further noted in his report that he followed the script minutely and is of the opinion that the candidate did not deserve two marks that had been earlier given. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws my attention to the co-ordinate Bench of this court passed in the matter of “Mayukh Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.” (W.P. 1673 (W) of 2013) wherein the same situation has arisen and the Scrutiny Officer had reduced the marks. The court upon examining the Rules and Regulations and also upon relying on a decision in “Moniruddin Bepari Vs. Chairman of Municipal Corporation reported in 40 CWN 17 and also a Division Bench judgement in the matter of “Asian Leather Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.” reported in (2007) 3 CHN 476 came to the conclusion that the action of the Scrutiny Officer in making corrections/deduction in marks is not permissible under the Rules. 4. Mrs. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board submits that the Scrutiny Officer made the correction in the answer scripts under the supervision of the Head Examiner and, therefore, such action cannot be assailed as the Head Examiner had the power to make the correction in the answer scripts. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 6. In the present case the Scrutiny Officer has acted beyond his powers in examining the validity of an answer, which is not in his brief. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 6. In the present case the Scrutiny Officer has acted beyond his powers in examining the validity of an answer, which is not in his brief. By doing so, he has exceeded his jurisdiction and I find that the same is not allowed under the Rules. Any action taken by the Head Examiner subsequent to such exercise carried out by the Scrutiny Officer and on the basis of such deduction having been made by the Scrutiny Officer cannot be sustained in law. 7. In my view, I see no reason why the principles established in “Mayukh Mandal” (supra) are not applicable to the present case and accordingly, hold that the action of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in reducing the marks of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained in law. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is directed to rectify the marks of the writ petitioner and issue fresh mark sheet in favour of the writ petitioner thereafter. The entire process must be done within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. 9. Let affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 be kept with the record. 10. All parties are to act on the server copy.