Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anupam Tripathi vs Board Of Secondary Education ... on 15 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 13921 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
ANUPAM TRIPATHI S/O SHRI GYANESHWAR
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT MINOR THROUGH HIS
FATHER GYANESHWAR TRIPATHI, S/O BHAILAL
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION TEACHER, R/O VILLAGE
PIPARIYAKALA, P.S. KEOLARI, DISTT. SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION M.P.
BHOPAL THROUGH THE SECRETARY BOARD
OF SECONDARY EDUCATION BHOPAL, DISTT.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL DEEP JYOTI PUBLIC HR. SECO.
SCHOOL KEOLARI DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI JUBIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1
& 2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent/Board to arrange for revaluation of copy of English subject where petitioner had Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 9/19/2022 5:20:41 PM 2 appeared in the High School Examination (10+2), 2019 under Roll No.197735894.
Shri Prasad, advocate submits that there is no provision for revaluation in the scheme.
Later on :- Ms. Saroj Deharia, counsel for the petitioner appears before the Court and submits that her rejoinder be taken on record. Alogwith the rejoinder she has filed copy of order dated 15/3/2018 passed by Indore Bench of this High Court in W.P.No.4517/2017 (Sarinath Das Gupta Vs. Board of Secondary Education), wherein Coordinate Bench reached to a conclusion that petitioner correctly answered question no.6 and he is a meritorious student who had secured 96 marks out of 100 in the said subject, therefore he deserves two more marks in the subject and allowed the writ petition.
However no glaring irregularity in valuation is shown on the face of the record and, therefore, when revaluation is not permissible, then this Court is precluded from entering into that arena of revaluation in any form. Thus in the light of the law laid down in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P., (2005) (2) M.P.L.J. 315 , M.P. Board of Secondary Education Vs. Ku. Vinita Rupra, 1998 (1) M.P.L.J. 595 and Dinesh Awasthi Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (3) M.P.L.J. 605 the petition is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 9/19/2022 5:20:41 PM