cases of strict
marking, the courts could always examine and moderate/normalise the
marks. He also referred to the decision in Mahinder Kumar ... submitted that the
court/examining authority had the inherent power to normalise the
marks. He submitted that this power was implicit in the power
petitioner dated 07.05.2025 and
15.06.2025 and awarding compensatory marks as per the normalisation
formula as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... directed that the present
petitioner shall be awarded grace marks by applying the normalisation
formula laid down in Disha Panchal (supra) and the updated
result
marks out of 40,
thereby totalling to 64.86 marks. In contrast, the petitioner secured 79.25
marks out of 124, which were normalised ... Error - 2: The Hon'ble Bench further records that
normalisation of marks in the ratio of 60:40 was done despite
both Petitioner
notion behind
granting grace marks, in cases such as the present one, is not to
award the exact number of marks to the aggrieved student ... directed that the present
petitioner shall be awarded grace marks by applying the normalisation
formula laid down in Disha Panchal (supra) and the updated
result
methodology/ formula adopted in
Disha Panchal (supra) to award 'grace marks'. The loss of time in W.P.(C)
8483/2025 (subject matter ... present case as well, relevant factors for
ascertaining his deserving compensatory marks have been deduced from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
applies a 'Normalisation Formula' where examination is held in
multiple shifts. After the formula is applied, final marks of a candidate may
increase ... reduction in their marks. Thus, Respondents may be directed
to disclose in each exam the values used in the Normalisation Formula,
wherever applicable.
5. Having
seeking an appropriate writ
of mandamus to the respondents to conduct a normalisation exercise to
reconcile the scores of the petitioner to match the score ... view of the loss of
30 minutes his marks should be subject to normalisation. Reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Supreme Court
petitioners is that, the method
of normalisation, which is applied by the respondents qua the marks of the
candidates, has been carried
scored 398/500 marks in the qualifying examination (2012).
Although in absolute figures these marks were less than the marks obtained
by the petitioner ... marks with the marks of Bajrang Prasad who
had appeared for the board examination in the previous year. Thus,
although the marks obtained by Bajrang
second, due to discrepancy in the marks
obtained by the candidates and converted to percentile using the
normalisation process.
14. The appellant appeared in Session
