1. The petitioners seek directions to the espondents to accept their revised mark lists by permitting them to access the KEAM web portal and to revise their ranks at the Kerala Engineering Entrance Examination, 2026.

2. Petitioners are students from the CBSE Board, who had applied for the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical Entrance Examination 2026 (for short 'KEAM 2026'). They had uploaded the marks obtained by them for the qualifying examinations initially. However, since they felt that their marks at the CBSE Board examination were low, they applied for revaluation. There were widespread allegations of errors in the valuation of CBSE examination answer sheets for this year. Hence the Kerala Government delayed publishing the rank list of KEAM 2026, to accommodate the students from the CBSE Board, who had applied for revaluation. The rank list was published on 27.06.2026. Petitioners allege that their CBSE revaluation marks were published only the day after the KEAM 2026 rank list was published. They allege that they have been deprived of their eligible rank at KEAM 2026 due to the irregularity in valuation by CBSE and even the delay in publishing their results. Hence they have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22847 of 2026, had studied her higher secondary course under CBSE Board at Sharjah, UAE. She had scored 97 marks in Mathematics, 55 marks in Physics and 90 marks in Chemistry. Since her score in Physics was significantly low, she applied for revaluation. The petitioner's result, after revaluation, was published only on 27.06.2026 which revealed that she had obtained an extra 20 marks for Physics. However, by that time, on 27.06.2026, the KEAM rank list was published and she was allotted only rank No.14500 as evident from Ext.P9.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22865 of 2026, had studied his higher secondary course under CBSE Board at Mananthawady, in Wayanad. He claims to be a brilliant student, having scored 94 marks in Mathematics, 94 marks in Physics and 98 marks in Chemistry. Despite such high marks since he felt that his scores were lower than what he expected, petitioner applied for revaluation. The revaluation results of the said petitioner was published only on 27.06.2026 and he obtained an extra 3 marks for the subject Mathematics, and 1 mark for Physics, thereby totalling to an increase of 4 marks. Though petitioner was already allotted rank No.1656 as evident from Ext.P2, the increase in 4 marks, according to him, can significantly change his rank. However, since on 27.06.2026, the KEAM rank list was published petitioner could not avail the benefit of his higher marks.

5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23009 of 2026, had studied her higher secondary course under CBSE Board at Kollam. She had scored 80 marks in Mathematics, 85 marks in Physics and 91 marks in Chemistry. Since she also felt that her scores were low, the said petitioner had also applied for revaluation. The revaluation results of the said petitioner was published only on 26.06.2026 and she too, obtained an extra 3 marks for the subject Mathematics, 1 mark for Physics and 2 marks for Chemistry, thereby totalling to an increase of 6 marks. Though petitioner was already allotted rank No.7911 as evident from Ext.P4, the increase in 6 marks can have a significant bearing on her rank. However, since on 27.06.2026, the KEAM rank list was published petitioner could not avail the benefit of his higher marks.

6. According to the petitioners, if their revalued marks are taken into reckoning, their rank would have improved tremendously. Thus petitioners seek a direction permitting them to upload their revised marks in the KEAM Web Portal and rearrange the rank list on the basis of the revised marks.

7. In the Statement filed on behalf of the second respondent it is averred that, due to issues regarding CBSE’s Board plus two results, notification inviting submission of qualifying examination marks was published only on 03.06.2026, granting time to the students till 07.06.2026. However, due to requests from CBSE students, the deadline was extended till 14.06.2026 and again till 23.06.2026. It is also stated that the rank list was finally published on 27.06.2026 and options for admissions were invited on 02.07.2026 and provisional allotment will commence on 07.07.2026 and final allotment was published on 08.07.2026. The second respondent has also stated that the B.Tech courses are to commence on 01.08.2026 with the deadline for completion of allotment process as 14.08.2026. It is further stated that there are three centralized allotment processes for Engineering courses, with a minimum of 15 days required to complete each allotment cycle. According to the respondents, due to delay in allotment processes in Kerala, a significant number of seats in Engineering Colleges remain vacant. Thus respondent sought the dismissal of the writ petitions.

8. Smt. Ummul Fida, Sri. Khaleequ Zaman and Sri. Ajith Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners submitted that this Court had already considered the plight of similar students and had granted the benefit to two students by order dated 01.07.2026 and such benefit ought to be extended to the petitioners as well. It was submitted that petitioners have approached this Court at the very first opportunity and hence they ought not to be denied the benefit. It was further submitted that when CBSE Board published the results of a majority of students before 23.06.2026, they failed to publish results of the petitioners before the cut off date, not due to any fault of the petitioners but solely due to the fault of the CBSE Board and hence petitioners ought not to be deprived of their legitimate claim. The learned counsel also submitted that they do not want to cause any prejudice to any person and since the first allotment has already been started, they be granted an opportunity in the next allotment with the revised rank list. Adv. Ummul Fida also submitted with vehemence, that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22847 of 2026, had approached the Court without any delay and had even been, before approaching the Court, repeatedly communicating with the second respondent.

9. Smt. Laya Mary Joseph, the learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the Government had changed the date of publication of rank list twice, to accommodate the revalued results of the students of the CBSE Board. It was also submitted that time was granted to CBSE Board students to upload their revalued marks till 23.06.2026 on which date, the portal was closed for preparing the rank list. It was further submitted that thereafter, the rank list was published on 27.06.2026 and hence the rank list ought not to be directed to be revisited, to include a person or any other persons. It was also pointed out that already, based on the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22000/2026 and W.P.(C) No.22010/2026, two petitioners have been directed to be included, subsequent to the publication of the rank list and there was a specific observation in that order that the said benefit was confined only to those petitioners and hence the petitioners are estopped from claiming any benefit under the said order. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that, as the allotment processes have already started on 08.07.2026, any interference with the rank list will bring the admission process into complete disarray.

10. Sri. Nirmal S., the learned Standing Counsel for CBSE Board filed a statement and submitted that the results of Class XII of CBSE was declared on 13.05.2026 and post result declaration facilities were extended to the students. It was also submitted that the revalued results were published in batches starting from 21.06.2026 and by now CBSE has released the results of all the candidates who had applied for revaluation. The learned Counsel also submitted that CBSE had written to the Commissioner of Entrance Examination Kerala, on 25-06-2026, that the results of remaining students will be published shortly.

11. While considering the rival submissions, this Court bears in mind that, in an earlier common order dated 01.07.2026, in W.P.(C) No. 22000/2026 and W.P.(C) No. 22010/2026, the benefit of uploading the revised marks was granted to those petitioners alone, after holding that theirs was an exceptional situation and that they had approached this Court on the first available opportunity. Since the said order directed it to be confined only to the petitioners therein, the petitioners in the instant three writ petitions cannot hence claim extension of the benefit of the said order.

12. Notwithstanding the above, the case of the three petitioners' has to be considered on merits. True, as noted in the common order in W.P.(C) No. 22000/2026 and W.P.(C) No.22010/2026, while the case of these petitioners arouses sympathy, that cannot be a reason to interfere with the admission process which has already commenced. Once the rank list has been published, interfering with the said list can prejudice those who are already included in it. Recasting the rank list after publication, can be prejudicial to the rights of such persons, who are not before this Court and hence normally, the court must show restraint in directing the rank list to be recast, based on revalued marks obtained by a candidate, beyond the cut off period. Reference to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Niveditha V.R. v. State of Kerala and Another (W.A.No.1533/2015), is appropriate in that regard.

13. In this context, it is appropriate to extract certain observations made by this Court in the common order dated 01.07.2026 in W.P.(C) No.22000/2026and W.P.(C) No.22010/2026, which dealt with the background of the issue, which are as below:

                  “10. However, the situation is not normal and is different in the present cases, as there were large-scale errors in valuation of CBSE answer sheets throughout the country for this year. The initial valuation conducted contained several technical glitches including swapped answer sheets, blurry scanned pages due to a newly launched digital scanning system etc. Unlike the case of a normal revaluation application of an individual candidate, there were innumerable number of applications, all over the country. The discrepancies in evaluation were allegedly wholly attributable to CBSE, with the candidates having no role in it. In fact, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22000 of 2026 even submitted that two of his answer sheets were not even available in his answer booklet for the first valuation.

                  11. The revaluation applications were submitted by a large majority of candidates, some of whom even approached the Supreme Court for expeditious completion of the revaluation. Thereafter, CBSE published the revaluation result in batches. Petitioners' revaluation results were published only on 25.06.2026 and 26.06.2026 respectively.

                  12. In the meantime, taking note of the plight of the large number of CBSE students, that too for no fault of theirs, the Government decided to extend the last date for uploading the higher secondary marks twice, and even varied the date of publishing the rank list from 20.06.2026, as prescribed in the KEAM Prospectus 2026 to later dates. The extended time line for submitting the marks was 23.06.2026 and the rank list was published on 26.06.2026.

                  13. In this context, it needs to be noted that CBSE had written to the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 25.06.2026 that the revaluation results are being published in batches and that of the remaining students will be published shortly. Despite the above intimation, the rank list was published on 26.06.2026. Unfortunately, petitioners' revaluation results having been published only on 25.06.2026 and 26.06.2026, they could not upload their mark and could not gain the benefit of the revalued results for no fault of theirs.

                  14. 25.06.2026 and 26.06.2026 were court holidays and hence petitioners could not approach this Court. On the next working day, i.e. 29.06.2026, these two writ petitions were filed. No one else has approached this Court complaining of non-consideration of their revalued marks. In such circumstances, the case of the two petitioners have to be viewed as arising out of exceptional circumstances, and cannot be dealt with as a normal instance of a failure to consider the revalued marks.”

14. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 22847 of 2026 and W.P.(C) No. 22865 of 2026 filed their respective writ petitions on 03.07.2026, while W.P.(C) No. 23009 of 2026 was filed on 06.07.2026. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22847 of 2026, studied at Sharjah and she had repeatedly communicated with the second respondent as is evident from Ext.P5, Ext.P8 and Ext.P10. As an overseas student, it cannot be said that the delay of five days in approaching this Court should be treated as detrimental to her cause, considering the peculiar situation of this year. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22865 of 2026 hails from Wayanad, a hilly area in Kerala and he had also approached this Court on 03.07.2026. The said petitioner also cannot be said to have delayed in approaching this Court. What remains is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23009 of 2026, who, as mentioned earlier, filed the writ petition on 06.07.2026, which is the next working day after 03.07.2026. Taking note of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the three petitioners cannot be denied the benefit on the ground of delay. They have approached the Court for redressal of their grievances at the earliest possible opportunity.

15. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that, in Niveditha V.R. (supra) the Division Bench had while denying permission to recast the rank list, relied upon the decision in Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jasmine Kaur and Others [(2014) 10 SCC 521] as well as Asha v. PT.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others [(2012) 7 SCC 389]. However, some of the observations in the latter case, are significant, and they are extracted as follows:

                  “The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the course which is more promising. ……Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the concerned authorities to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations.”

16. The decision Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jasmine Kaur and Others (supra) was overruled in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2020) 17 SCC 465], wherein the following conclusions were arrived at:

                  “13.1 That in a case where a candidate/student has approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the Court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.

                  13.2 Under exceptional circumstances, if the Court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his / her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and / or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed - 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time, i.e., within one month from 30th September, i.e., cut off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled.”

17. The situation in the instant writ petitions is undoubtedly exceptional. The valuation of the CBSE Board answer sheets had numerous flaws. As noted earlier, the initial valuation conducted contained several technical glitches including swapped answer sheets, blurry scanned pages due to a newly launched digital scanning system etc. and the discrepancies in valuation were not attributable to the candidates. Further, though majority of the revaluations were done, petitioners fell into a category whose revalued results were published only after the rank list was published -again for no fault of theirs. They have also approached this Court without any delay. Though the process of admissions is a laborious task for the authorities, that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit, especially when a candidate of higher merit has approached this Court without undue delay.

18. On a consideration of the circumstances mentioned above, this Court is of the view that the three petitioners also fall in the category of exceptional situation. Exceptional circumstances warrant exceptional measures. Hence, the situation requires the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to render justice. Therefore petitioners ought to be granted the relief. However, as the allotment process has already started, the relief has to be moulded in such a manner that the allotment process, already commenced, will not be affected.

                  Accordingly, the following directions are issued:

                  (i) The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, Kerala, shall accept the revalued mark list of the three writ petitioners, if uploaded latest by 12.30 p.m. on 13.07.2026 and recast the rank list on the basis of their revalued marks before the second allotment commences.

                  (ii) To enable the three petitioners to upload their revalued marks, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations shall keep the web portal open from 10.30 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. on 13.07.2026. The date is fixed as 13.07.2026, to avoid conflict with the ongoing allotment process. Under no circumstances shall the revalued marks of any other person be permitted to be uploaded.

                  (iii) The candidature of the petitioners for admission on the basis of the ranks so granted to them, after recasting the rank list, shall be considered only from the next allotment onwards, and they shall not be entitled to claim any benefit in the first allotment.

The writ petitions are allowed as above.