Allahabad High Court
Arunendra Kumar Kanaujiya Thru. ... vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10677 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1231 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arunendra Kumar Kanaujiya Thru. Father, Shri Ganga Ram Kanaujia Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Secondary Education, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunakar Srivastava,Shiv Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority for re-evaluation of answer sheet of petitioner pertaining to drawing subject Code No.936 paper no.830/R of High School Examination, 2024 by a competent technical art subject teacher and to correct the mark sheet accordingly.
In pursuance of direction issued earlier written instructions dated 15.2.2025 are taken on record.
Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to answer sheet of petitioner and submits that the petitioner had applied for technical drawing subject and not simple drawing. It is submitted that petitioner has an apprehension that his paper was not evaluated by a teacher competent in technical drawing, which would be evident from the fact that for technical drawing the petitioner has been awarded 6 and 5 whereas in simple drawing portion full marks have been awarded. It is further submitted that the said fact can lead us to an assumption that paper has been checked by a person, who was competent in simple drawing and not in technical drawing. It is also submitted that petitioner thereafter applied for scrutiny, which was done but without any result in change in marks. It is also submitted that in case answer sheet is re-evaluated, there is hope of petitioner that his marks would increase. At the same time, he admits that there is no provision of re-evaluation of answer sheet.
Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned State Counsel on the basis of written instructions has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that without any specific provision of re-evaluation, the same cannot be directed and in pursuance of petitioner's application for scrutiny, the same was conducted without any change in the marks. It is also submitted that entire petition is based only on assumption.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it transpires that sole basis of petitioner's allegation that his paper was re-evaluated by a teacher competent only in simple drawing and not in technical drawing is the fact that he has been granted full marks in simple drawing but only half of the full marks have been granted in technical drawing. It is also admitted that there is no provision of re-evaluation of answer sheet and scrutiny has already been done.
Considering the aforesaid situation, it is evident that entire basis of petitioner's claim is an assumption that his paper was not examined by a teacher competent in technical drawing since full marks have not been awarded.
In the considered opinion of this Court, markings with regard to specified subject is in an expert domain and this Court cannot rush in to fill any such assumed gap as is being claimed. Moreso, when there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheet.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth, 1984 (4) SCC 27 has already held that re-evaluation of answer sheets can be done only where there is specific provision for the same.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has been unable to establish by any substantive evidence, the assumptions on which he is relying.
In view of the above, the petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Anupam