Gujarat High Court Directs GSHSEB To Ensure Question Papers Should Specifically State Which Questions Are For Visually Impaired Students

The Gujarat High Court directed Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (GSHSEB) to ensure that question papers should specifically state the list of instructions as to which of the questions are only for visually impaired students.

A petition was filed by a class 10 student for the revaluation of her Basic Mathematics answer-sheet as the examination question paper contained ambiguous instructions at certain places.

The Bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel observed, “Thus, to this Court, it would appear that the respondent no.2 should have been alive to such a situation and should ensure that question papers in future, be it of standard 10th or standard 12th, such an ambiguity should not arise. The Board should ensure that question papers should specifically state at the commencement of the question paper the list of instructions as to which of the questions are only for visually impaired students. Furthermore, the instructions in the body of the question paper should specifically list out the questions which are meant only for the students having visual impairment. To this Court, it would appear that providing clarity to the students would go a long way in ensuring that the faith and trust placed by the students and parents all over the State in the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board is justified.”

Advocate Rafik Lokhandwala represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Aditya Pathak represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The petitioner was in class 10th standard and had given her board examination in the month of March, 2025. It was the case of the petitioner that the question paper for the subject Basic Mathematics contained ambiguous instructions as at certain places it was mentioned that the questions were for visually impaired students.

It was contended that the instruction did not spell out as to which questions were for visually impaired students, thus she had attempted the questions which were for visually impaired students.

A similar issue had occurred in the 12th standard examination and whereas, upon representations being received, the Board i.e. Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board had taken a decision that questions meant for visually impaired students having been attempted by non visually impaired students also would be assessed and marks would be given to non-visually impaired students.

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that since the petitioner’s grievance has not resulted in any prejudice to her, therefore, the present was not a fit case for issuance of a prerogative writ.

The Court noted that the petitioner has now joined 11th standard and it was not the case of the petitioner that because of the lack of marks, the petitioner who wanted to study in some other stream in the 12th standard, could not get appropriate admission.

“It also appears to this Court that marks of 10th standard examination, though very important to a student, would not be the criteria for any future admission (except for standard 11) or any future employment…Thus, overall, it would appear that the petitioner though may have fallen short of some marks, if the best case of the petitioner is accepted, yet, it would not appear to this Court that any prejudice is caused to the present petitioner”, the Court said.

The Bench was also of the opinion that issuing directions for revaluation could lead to a situation where the Board would be faced with similar requests from thousands of students who had not raised any grievance.

The Court remarked, “As such, considering from the petitioner’s perspective, as noticed hereinabove, he has not suffered any real or substantial prejudice on account of the error which may have been committed by the respondent Board. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the petitioner may have a case against the respondent Board, but, public interest and equity demand that there should not be any interference in the present petition.”

While directing the State Board, the Court also directed that the general instructions in the body of the question paper shall also specifically mention the question numbers which are for the students having visual impairment.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Aasiyabanu Mohammed Afzal Shaikh Since Minor Through Mohammed Afzal Mohammed Yakub Shaikh V. State Of Gujarat & Ors

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Rafik Lokhandwala

Respondents: Advocate Aditya Pathak for Respondents No. 1 to 5.

Click here to read/download Judgment