Kerala HC Orders KEAM 2026 Rank List Recast for Three CBSE Students Whose Revaluation Results Arrived After Cutoff
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that CBSE valuation failures, not any lapse by the students, caused them to miss the KEAM 2026 rank list cutoff, warranting relief under Article 226 moulded so as not to disturb the ongoing first allotment.
The High Court of Kerala on 9 July 2026 directed the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations to reopen the KEAM 2026 web portal for a two-hour window, accept the revalued CBSE mark lists of three students, and recast the engineering rank list before the second allotment commences. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, sitting singly at Ernakulam, found that the students had been shut out of the rank list not through any fault of their own but because CBSE published their revaluation results either on the same day as, or after, the rank list was published on 27 June 2026. The bench applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, treating the situation as exceptional and moulding the relief so that the first allotment — already published on 8 July 2026 — would remain undisturbed.
Three CBSE Students Locked Out of KEAM 2026 Rank List
The three petitioners are Farasha Shabnam (WP(C) No. 22847 of 2026), Eshan Ahmed (WP(C) No. 22865 of 2026), and Asna A.S. (WP(C) No. 23009 of 2026). All three had studied under the CBSE Board and had applied for the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical Entrance Examination 2026, uploading their original qualifying examination marks through the KEAM portal.
Farasha Shabnam had studied at Sharjah, UAE. She scored 97 marks in Mathematics, 90 in Chemistry, and only 55 in Physics. Finding her Physics score low, she applied for revaluation. Her revised result, published on 27 June 2026, showed an increase of 20 marks in Physics. That, however, was the same day the KEAM 2026 rank list was published, leaving her with rank 14,500 on the basis of her original marks.
Eshan Ahmed, a student from Mananthawady in Wayanad, had scored 94 in Mathematics, 94 in Physics, and 98 in Chemistry. Despite these scores he applied for revaluation. His revised result, also published on 27 June 2026, showed a gain of 3 marks in Mathematics and 1 mark in Physics. He had been allotted rank 1,656, and an increase of 4 marks, he argued, would move him substantially up the list.
Asna A.S., from Kollam, had scored 80 in Mathematics, 85 in Physics, and 91 in Chemistry. Her revised result was published on 26 June 2026 and showed gains of 3 marks in Mathematics, 1 in Physics, and 2 in Chemistry — a total of 6 marks. She had been allotted rank 7,911 on the basis of her original marks.
Why the Rank List Was Published Despite CBSE Revaluation Still in Progress
The backdrop to all three cases is a State decision to accommodate CBSE students caught in a nationwide valuation crisis. According to the statement filed by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, the notification for submitting qualifying examination marks was published only on 3 June 2026, with the original deadline set at 7 June 2026. That deadline was extended twice — first to 14 June 2026 and then to 23 June 2026 — specifically because of CBSE students awaiting revaluation results. The rank list was originally scheduled for publication on 20 June 2026 as per the KEAM Prospectus 2026, but was eventually published on 27 June 2026.
CBSE's own standing counsel informed the Court that the Class XII results had been declared on 13 May 2026 and that revaluation results were published in batches starting from 21 June 2026. CBSE had written to the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations on 25 June 2026 stating that results of remaining students would be published shortly. Despite that communication, the rank list was published on 27 June 2026.
The valuation failures were not routine. The court's earlier order in WP(C) Nos. 22000 and 22010 of 2026 — which had granted relief to two other students on 1 July 2026 — had recorded that the initial CBSE valuation “contained several technical glitches including swapped answer sheets, blurry scanned pages due to a newly launched digital scanning system.” That order had also noted that discrepancies were wholly attributable to CBSE, with candidates having no role in them.
Why the Earlier Order Did Not Cover These Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the Court had already granted relief in WP(C) Nos. 22000 and 22010 of 2026 and that the same benefit ought to flow to them. The Government Pleader, Smt. Laya Mary Joseph, countered that the 1 July 2026 order had expressly confined its benefit to the two petitioners before it and that a specific observation to that effect estopped the present petitioners from relying on it. Justice Thomas accepted that position in law: the earlier order could not be extended to cover the present three petitioners as a matter of course.
The Government Pleader also submitted that the allotment process had already started, with the final allotment published on 8 July 2026, and that interfering with the rank list at this stage would bring the admission process into “complete disarray.” The Commissioner's statement noted that B.Tech courses were to commence on 1 August 2026, that the deadline for completing the allotment process was 14 August 2026, and that each of the three centralised allotment cycles required a minimum of 15 days.
The bench was therefore required to assess the three petitioners' cases independently on merits, not by extension of the earlier order.
How the Bench Reasoned Through the Delay and Competing Interests
Justice Thomas addressed whether the petitioners had approached the Court without undue delay. Farasha Shabnam filed her writ petition on 3 July 2026. The bench noted that 25 and 26 June 2026 were court holidays and that she, as an overseas student based in Sharjah, had repeatedly communicated with the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations before approaching the Court, as evidenced by emails on 25 June, 27 June, and 2 July 2026. A five-day gap from the publication of the rank list was treated as understandable given her situation.
Eshan Ahmed also filed on 3 July 2026 from Wayanad, a hilly area, and was similarly held to have acted without delay. Asna A.S. filed on 6 July 2026, which the bench found to be the next working day after 3 July 2026. The bench concluded that none of the three petitioners could be denied relief on the ground of delay.
On the broader legal question, the bench acknowledged the Division Bench decision in Niveditha V.R. v. State of Kerala and Another (WA No. 1533 of 2015), which had denied permission to recast a rank list after publication. That decision had relied on Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jasmine Kaur and Others [(2014) 10 SCC 521]. However, Justice Thomas noted that Jasmine Kaur was overruled by the Supreme Court in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2020) 17 SCC 465]. The bench extracted the relevant conclusions from S. Krishna Sradha, which permitted courts to grant relief in exceptional circumstances where there is no fault attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued legal rights expeditiously, and there is apparent breach of rules or fault on the part of authorities.
The bench also drew on the Supreme Court's observations in Asha v. PT.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others [(2012) 7 SCC 389], which the Division Bench in Niveditha V.R. had cited but which the Court found cut in the petitioners' favour: “Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the concerned authorities to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness.”
Applying these principles, the bench found that all three petitioners fell within the category of exceptional circumstances. The valuation failures were systemic, not individual; the delay in publishing revaluation results was attributable entirely to CBSE; and the Government itself had twice extended the deadline to accommodate CBSE students before closing the portal. Once the portal closed and the rank list was published, these three students were left without a remedy through no fault of their own.
Relief Moulded to Protect the Ongoing Allotment
The bench was conscious that recasting a rank list after publication can prejudice candidates who are already on it and who are not before the Court. The reference to Niveditha V.R. was retained as a general caution even as the court departed from its outcome on the facts. To avoid disrupting the first allotment already published on 8 July 2026, the relief was moulded with precision.
Order
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed all three writ petitions and issued the following directions:
The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, Kerala, shall accept the revalued mark lists of the three petitioners if uploaded by 12.30 p.m. on 13 July 2026, and shall recast the rank list on the basis of their revalued marks before the second allotment commences.
To enable the upload, the web portal shall remain open from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 13 July 2026. Under no circumstances shall the revalued marks of any other person be permitted to be uploaded during that window.
The petitioners' candidature on the basis of the revised ranks shall be considered only from the next allotment onwards. They are not entitled to claim any benefit in the first allotment.