Sonu Kumar Mali vs State of M.P. and Another

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to grant him about 91% marks in subject of social science by undertaking the exercise of revaluation. In addition, the petitioner has prayed for direction for taking penal action against the respondent authorities and has also prayed for grant of cost. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a meritorious student. In High School exam he secured 87.33% marks. It is contended that the petitioner has not been given correct marks in the subject of social science. The petitioner has been given 65% marks, whereas as per his claim he should have been given 91% marks.

Prayer is opposed by the other side by filing reply.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The point involved in this matter is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court (Indore Bench) in WA No. 892/2013 (State of M.P. Vs. Ku. Taruni Gupta and Anr.) set aside the order on Writ Court, wherein the Writ Court had directed revaluation of the matter. The Division Bench opined as under:-

We are of the considered opinion that in respect to appreciation and evaluation of papers particularly of language paper, this Court cannot sit as a super-examiner about evaluation of the answer sheets by the examiner as we are of the view that valuation of such paper would also depends upon the understanding of the language and contents of the answer and are not such which can be counted for like answer for maths. In language paper, for same passage, out of ten marks, the examiner may give 5 or 6 or 7 marks, therefore, this Court sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction is not expected to sit as a super examiner so as to re-valuate the answers afresh. More so, such revaluation has not been permitted even under the Rules.

We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. Consequently, present Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. It is ordered that amount of Rs. 5000/- which is stated to have been deposited by the respondent with the appellant for revaluation purpose, would be refunded back within one month from the date of receipt of this order. However, there is no order as to costs.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, no provision was shown to the court which permits revaluation under the Rules. This Court cannot sit as an expert to re-assess or re-value the answers given by the petitioner. Thus, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents. I am bound by the order passed by the Indore Bench in case of Taruni Gupta (supra). In view of the said judgment, no relief is due to the petitioner. Petition is merit-less and is hereby dismissed.