CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Kanak Lata Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 31 March 2008 · Citation: (2008) 6 AWC 5544

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 16594 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 401 words

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.

Contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner appeared in the entrance examination of C.P.M.T., 2007. The last candidate who has been selected on the basis of the aforesaid entrance examination had obtained 159 marks whereas the Petitioner got 153 marks due to negligence of the authority, hence she could not get admission in the M.B.B.S. Course, 2007.

3.

It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner by Sri O.P. Shukla, advocate that 10 questions are such which contain more than one correct answers and she claims that she would be selected if one marks for answer of each of the 10 questions is given to her. She has also moved representation to the Registrar, Veer Bahadur Singh Poorvanchal University which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 8.2.2008.

4.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8.2.2008 the Petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

5.

From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the stand taken by the University is that the answers of the questions have been moderated by a Panel of Expert who had agreed to one key answer to the questions. It is settled law that once the questions have been moderated no further claim can be made by any candidate.

6.

In this view of the matter, since the Panel of Expert having found the claim of the Petitioner is not correct hence 1 mark in each of the 10 questions as claimed by her cannot be given to her. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in deciding the representation of the Petitioner.

7.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the marks awarded to the Petitioner are not correct. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner cannot sit over the panel of expert nor can she claim revaluation of her answer-sheet. It is urged that the claim of the Petitioner is based upon answers given as per booklet. This argument has no force. Once the answers have been moderated only correct answer will be the same as agreed upon by the panel of expert and not by the answers given in the booklet.

8.

For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.