The petitioner, who enrolled in a two-year Master of Arts program in July 2017, completed the course with a score of 49% in February 2020. Aspiring to pursue a Ph.D., the petitioner opted to take advantage of the Class Improvement Scheme (CIS) to enhance their grades. After an unsuccessful first attempt in January 2021, the petitioner attempted the exam again from June 18 to July 1, 2021, choosing to sit for seven papers but ultimately missing one due to illness.

On October 11, 2021, the college informed the petitioner that their class had not improved. Despite this, the college later advertised a Ph.D. program, with a cut-off percentage of 55%, prompting the petitioner to seek legal recourse for a revised marksheet.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the CIS, which allows students to improve their grades under specific conditions. According to the CIS, students must "choose and appear" for the papers they select. In this case, since the petitioner did not appear for one of the seven chosen papers, the court ruled that they were ineligible for the benefits of the CIS.

The CIS also stipulates that a minimum of three papers must be attempted, reinforcing the requirement that students must complete all selected exams to qualify for any improvement in their grades.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the stipulated guidelines of the CIS. It found that the petitioner had not complied with the scheme's requirements, as failing to appear for one chosen paper disqualified them from any grade improvement.

Moreover, even if the court had accepted the petitioner's arguments, the results would not have met the minimum requirement for Ph.D. admission, as the score would only marginally rise from 49% to 51.6%.

In light of these findings, the court dismissed the petition, confirming that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief or revised marksheet. The decision underscores the necessity for students to follow examination protocols meticulously, particularly when seeking to enhance academic qualifications through improvement schemes. The court concluded the proceedings with no order as to costs, leaving the petitioner without recourse to challenge the result of the class improvement exam.