Patna High Court - Orders
Ravi Raj vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 April, 2017
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2905 of 2016
======================================================
Ravi Raj son of Ram Naresh Thakur, resident of mohalla Sri Krishan
Nagar, P.O. Motihari, District East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary of Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman of Bihar School Examination Board at Patna.
3. The Examination Controller of Bihar School Examination Board, at
Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board at Patna.
5. The Principal USR College, Siswa Patna District East Champaran.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Md. Irshad, AC to SC-1
For the Respondent Board: Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2017The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents for re- checking of his answer script of Mathematics and Chemistry of Intermediate Examination, 2014. It is his case that he had applied for such re-checking, but the Board has neither rejected the said representation nor made any communication conveying deficiency in the petitioner's application.
I have perused the pleadings of the writ application and the representation which has been brought on record by the petitioner seeking re-valuation of his answer script. This is not in dispute that there is no provision for re-evaluation or rechecking Patna High Court CWJC No.2905 of 2016 (2) dt.07-04-2017 2/2 of answer script. Further, there is nothing specific stated, either in the writ application or his representation, which could have necessitated this Court to consider for issuance of direction for re- valuation of his answer script.
It is true that the Board might have entertained duly submitted application form for re-totalling of the answer scripts, if such application was made with requisite fee, but even that was not done by the petitioner. No direction, therefore, can be issued.
The application is dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) BTiwary/-
U