State Cannot Apply Draft Grading Rules To SSLC Exams Already Conducted: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Review Petition

"Review petitioners-State is placing the Draft Rules dated 10.04.2026, which is yet to be born... for all practical purposes, there is no Rules as on today unless the said Draft Rules is promulgated in a manner known to law," Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the State Government cannot seek to apply a grading system to SSLC examinations based on a draft notification issued after the completion of the exams.

A single-judge bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that valuations for the Academic Year 2025-2026 must strictly follow the rules and circulars that were prevailing at the time the examinations were conducted.

Background of the Case

The State of Karnataka filed a review petition challenging an order dated April 15, 2026, which directed the government to conduct SSLC paper valuations for the 2025-2026 academic year as per a Revised Circular dated October 28, 2025. The State contended that it had introduced a new grading system through a Draft Notification dated April 10, 2026, under the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board Act, 1966. However, this draft was not placed before the court during the initial writ proceedings.

Legal Issues

The primary question before the court was whether a Draft Notification, which had not yet attained the force of law and was issued after the conclusion of exams, could constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record" to justify a review of the court's earlier order. The court was also called upon to determine if its directions curtailed the State’s sovereign power to take future policy decisions regarding education.

Court’s Observations and Judgment

State Duty-Bound To Follow Prevailing Rules During Examination Process

The Court noted that the State had issued a Revised Circular on October 28, 2025, specifically for the conduct of SSLC examinations for the 2025-2026 academic year. At the time this notification was issued, no steps had been taken to introduce a grading system. The bench emphasized that the government is under a legal obligation to conclude the examination process under the regulatory framework that existed when the process commenced.

Exams Completed Before Introduction Of Draft Rules

The bench highlighted the chronological disconnect in the State's argument, noting that the SSLC examinations were conducted between March 18, 2026, and April 2, 2026. The Draft Rules, which the State sought to rely upon for valuation, were only notified on April 10, 2026—well after the examinations had concluded. The Court remarked that the arguments of the Advocate General "cannot be accepted on the face of it" given this timeline.

"It is the duty of the State Government to conduct the examination as per the prevailing Notification/Circular."

Draft Rules Not Promulgated In Law Lack Legal Sanction

The Court observed that the State was relying on a "Draft" which was still subject to objections from aggrieved parties and had not been finalized. Justice Indiresh pointed out that for all practical purposes, these rules do not legally exist until they are formally promulgated. Consequently, the non-consideration of a non-existent or "yet to be born" rule cannot be termed an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

Scope Of Review Jurisdiction Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat (2021), the Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited. Since the Draft Rules had no legal force at the time of the original judgment, there was no jurisdictional error. The Court further noted that while a Division Bench had dismissed a similar PIL, that specific order was not placed before the current bench during the initial disposal of the writ petition.

"There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order passed by this Court on 15.04.2026."

Judicial Review Targets Decision-Making Process, Not Policy Merits

Addressing the State's concern that the court's order might hinder future policy-making, the Court clarified the boundaries of Article 226. Citing H.B. Gandhi v. M/s Gopi Nath & Sons (1992), the bench noted that judicial review is intended to interfere with the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The Court stated that its order was specific to the 2025-2026 academic year and did not permanently strip the State of its power to legislate.

Future State Power To Amend Rules Preserved

The Court clarified that it remains open for the State Government to take lawful decisions in the future, as policy matters fall within the executive domain. However, such decisions must not be based on "extraneous considerations" or "colourable exercises" of power, as held in Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal (1985). The Court's current intervention was limited to ensuring the sanctity of the ongoing academic cycle's valuation process.

"The order passed by this Court... should not curtail the power of the State Government in taking decision in accordance with law, in future."

The High Court disposed of the review petition, affirming that valuations for the SSLC Academic Year 2025-2026 must proceed under the Revised Circular dated October 28, 2025. While the State's power to introduce future grading systems was preserved, the Court held that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed via draft notifications after the examination process is complete.

Date of Decision: 21 April 2026