Kumari Mohini Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Pramendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

In brief the facts of the present case are to the effect that the petitioner appeared as a regular student in High School Examination, conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad with Roll No. 2158551 from institution knows as Subhash Navyuvak Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khairaveeru, Barabanki. Thereafter, the result of the said examination was declared and the marksheet was issued, the petitioner was not satisfied from the marks which were awarded to her in certain subjects. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Board issued an advertizement (Annexure-3) by which it was provided that in case if the students who had appeared in the examination in question and are not satisfied with the marks allotted to them in any subject they may apply for scrutiny of their answer books after completing the formalities as mentioned therein.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in respect to the same, the petitioner submitted an application for scrutiny after completing the necessary formalities in the subjects. In this regard she submitted a representation dated 04.06.2010 (Annexure-4) after completing all the necessary formalities required for the said purpose as per the advertizement/document issued by the respondent as contained as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In this regard an averment has been made in paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition. However till date no heed has been paid in spite of the representation made by the petitioner in the matter in question. Hence the present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 4.6.2010 submitted by the petitioner for revaluation/scrutiny of answer sheet of Home Science of Class-10 of Roll No. 2158551, as contained Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revaluate/scrutiny of the answer sheet of the Home Science of Class-10 of Roll No. 2158551 of the petitioner and fresh mark sheet may be issued accordingly.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

So far as the matter relates to re-evaluation of the answer book is concerned it is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision or rule for the purpose of re-evaluation of the answer books of the students who have appeared in the High School/Intermediate Examination conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.

Further so far the issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. In view of the law as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, wherein it is held that "in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision." The Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:

In our opinion, this approach made by the High Court was not correct or proper because the question whether a particular piece of delegated legislation- whether a rule or regulation or other type of statutory instrument-is in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate has to be determined with reference only to the specific provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation, etc. and also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational acts within the object and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred on the delegated by the Statute. In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation- making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

This view has been referred to approved, relied upon and reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastva v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. J.T. 2004 SC 380 observing as under:

Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answer given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and nothing them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation has got any right whatsoever to claim of ask for re- evaluation of his marks.

Accordingly, the prayer as made by the petitioner for reevaluation of answer book cannot be granted in the present case as the same is misconceived accordingly rejected.

So far as the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition for scrutiny of the answer book of the subjects in regard to which she has submitted an application on 04.06.2010 (Annexure-4) after completing all the necessary formalities as required for the said purpose in view of the advertizement/document (Annexure-3) issued by the Board, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the O.P. No. 3 (Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Allahabad) annexing all the relevant documents and material in support of her case along with self addressed envelop within a period of 3 weeks and after receiving the same O.P. No. 3 shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of three weeks thereafter in accordance with law provided the petitioner has fulfilled all the necessary conditions while submitting her application for scrutiny (Annexure-4) in terms of the advertizement (Annexure-3) and communicate the petitioner.

With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.