Kumari Sonika vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the Petitioner and the standing counsel.

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to produce his answer sheets of Mathematics 1st and Chemistry I Ind papers of Intermediate examination.

The purpose of the writ petition appears to be that the candidate wants to satisfy herself that answers given by her have been correctly evaluated or not.

The Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, has held as follows:

The process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to the examinees is involved. The principle of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation make by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.

This Court cannot permit revaluation of copies by the candidate. Even otherwise the marks given to the Petitioner cannot be said to be incorrectly given unless copies of all other candidates appearing alongwith the Petitioner are seen for the purpose of evaluation of her copy viz a viz others. This is not possible in writ jurisdiction. The High Court can also not call for copies of thousands of candidates just to satisfy an examinee; with any concrete basis made out on the facts of the case. In the opinion of the Court obtaining less mark in a subject is not a ground for calling of copy of that paper.

In view of settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to interfere in its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with this observation that Petitioner if aggrieved may file a suit for redressal of his grievance. No order as to costs.