High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 05 MP CK 0102

Ku. Farheen vs Secretary The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 May 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Yadav, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P. No. 678/2014

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 350 words

Sanjay Yadav, J.—The petitioner in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus to the effect that answer script of subject of Biology of the Higher Secondary School Examination (10 + 2) held in the year 2013 conducted by the respondents be summoned and the copy be revalued through subject expert.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that she appeared in Higher Secondary School Examination (10 + 2) held in the year 2013 and in answer script of Biology she was allotted 44 marks out of 100.

3.

It is alleged that though she fared well in Biology expecting of obtaining good marks. Since the petitioner has scored less marks, the petitioner applied for spot checking of paper of Biology of the Higher Secondary School Examination (10 + 2).

4.

It is urged that, answer script of the petitioner has not been properly valued and therefore, she has been awarded much less marks then the expectation.

5.

The issue as to revaluation of answer script in case where regulation does not provide for as in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled at rest by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, , M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Ku. Vinita Rupra, , the Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors.-Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 10600 OF 2009) decided on 17th August 2011 as well as judgment rendered by a Division Bench in Ku. Neha Indurkhya Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, and in Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. and Others, .

6.

In the case at hand, having failed to demonstrate any negligence on the part of the examiner no direction can be issued to the respondents to reexamine the answer sheet of the petitioner.

7.

In view whereof petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.