AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for revaluation of answer of the petitioner''s High School Examination 2003.
The petitioner has alleged that his son namely Jai Prakash appeared in the High School Examination in the year 2003 from Government Inter College Sukhdhang, Champawat. On 30-6-2003 result of High School Examination was declared by the respondents which was published in the news paper on 1-7-2003. The petitioner was shocked to see that he had been given only 7 marks in math first paper and 14 marks in Maths second paper out of 100 marks. As the result the petitioner''s son Was failed in the examination.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
So far as the revaluation of answer book is concerned the same is not permissible in view of the various authorities of the Apex Court and High Courts. The Apex Court in Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. The Dean, B.J. Medical College and others, , Arun Desai v: High Court of Bombay through Chief Justice, reported in Arun D. Desai Vs. High Court of Bombay and Others, , in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, has held that evaluation of answer book is not permissible and the same does not attract the principle of nature justice.
Relying upon the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court the Allahabad High Court has also taken the same view in a case Subhash Chand v. State of U.P. 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1085 : 2001 All LJ 897 and Mobeen Ahmad Ansari v. State of U.P. 1999 (1) UPLBEC 603.
Rule 21 Chapter XII of U.P. Education Code, provides as under :
21- mu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh mRrj iqfLrdk;sa tks eq[; ijh{kk esa dsoy ,d fo"k; ml fo"k; ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr 5 izfr''kr vadksa ls vf/kd ls mRrhZ.k ugha gS fcuk ''kqYd vFkok vkosnu i= ds lafujhf{kr dh tk;sxhA vU; ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa tks viuh mRrj iqLrdsa lafujhf{kr djkuk pkgrs gS fuEufyf[kr fu;esa ds vuqlkj djk ldrs gSA
d- dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ tks ifj"kn }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kk esa izfo"V gqvk gS fo"k;ksa ds vius vadks dh lafujh{kk }kjk iqu% tk�p djkus ds fy, vkosnu i= ns ldrk gSA
[k- ,sls leLr vkosnu i=ksa ds lkFk dks"k pkyku dh ,d izfrfyfi ;g fn[kkrs gq, 20 :i;s izfr fo"k; dh nj ls fu/kkZfjr ''kqYd ns fn;k x;k gS] vo''; gksuh pkfg,A mRrj izsns''k ls ckgj ds LFkku ls vkosnu i= Hkstus okys ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa ;g ''kqYd lfpo ds dk;kZy; esa izsf"kr iksLVy vkMZj vFkok LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k dh bykgkckn ''kk[kk ij jsf[kr cSad M�kQV }kjk Hkstk tkuk pkfg;sA
x- ,sls leLr vkosnu i= ijh{kkQy dh frFkh ls rhl fnuksa dh vof/k ds vUnj vo''; fn;s tkus pkfg,A
The aforesaid Rule (Ka) contains the provisions regarding scrutiny iqu% tk�p of the answer books. The provision is self explanatory and the Board has power to scrutinise the answer books in accordance with Rule (ka) of Rule 21. The rule gives ample power to the Board to help and assist the students who are desirous of getting their answer books scrutinised.
There lies a deference between scrutiny and revaluation. The provisions as referred above contains the provision of lafujh{kk which can be termed as scritiny of answer books and it may also be called as iqu% tk�p whereas revaluation has been defined in the Legal Glossary as iwuZewY;k�du Thus it is clear that only scrutiny iqu% tk�p of answer books is available to a student and there is no provision of valuing the answer books again.
Moreover, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person so as to file the present writ petition; therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable.
However, since the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and he is seeking relief in respect of Jai Prakash Bhatt who has appeared in the examination, this order will not preclude the student namely Jai Prakash to move for scrutiny in accordance with Rule 21 of Education Manual as stated above. This order will also not preclude Sri Jai Prakash to file a fresh writ petition, if he is so advised.
Subject to aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.