Shahzadai Qureshi vs Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of revaluation of her answer sheets of the Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade-I) Eligibility Test-2011.

It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has undertaken and participated in the Samvida Shala Shikshak (Grade-I) Eligibility Test-2011 as she possessed all the necessary requisite qualifications for doing so. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner was declared failed as she obtained 73.01% marks whereas the maximum qualifying marks were 75%. It is submitted that the petitioner scrutinized her answer sheets and model answer and felt that she was entitled to 90% marks and accordingly she prayed for revaluation of her answer sheet on 25.01.2012, however, the respondent again declared her failed by issuing a revised revaluation on 31.07.12. Being aggrieved by the same, she has filed the present petition.

It is alleged that the petitioner has compared the model answer and answer sheet and states that she is entitled to 90% marks whereas the respondent has wrongly revaluated the answers sheet and has awarded only 73.01% marks.

Respondent by filing a return per contra submits that there is no provisions for revaluation and that the answer sheets of the petitioner were duly evaluated in accordance with law. It is stated that on her submitting the application for revaluation, the matter was again scrutinized and no change in the revaluation is found. Accordingly communication dated 31.07.12 was issued. The respondent by placing reliance on the decisions of this court rendered in the case of Ku. Neha Indurkhya Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, , Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. and Others, decided on 23.10.2010 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, All India Pre Medical/Pre Dental Examination C.B.S.E. And others Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and others Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2011 has asserted that in the absence of any provisions for revaluation the claim of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

The petitioner per contra has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sahiti and Others Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others,

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and having scrutinized the evidence available on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner in the petition has not been able to make out any case warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this court for directing the respondent to revaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any infirmity or illegality in the revaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner.

In the circumstance, I do not find any reason to allow the prayer for revaluation made by the petitioner, moreso, in view of the decision of the supreme court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.