Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganesh Pal Singh Kasediya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2014

              Writ Petition No.3751 of 2013
24.09.2014

        Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
        Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The relief claimed in this petition is to issue direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the examination papers of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that there is no provision for re-evaluation of any answer scripts. In absence of such provision, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, placing reliance on the observations of the Division Bench in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya (Minor) Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2005 (2) MPLJ 315 submits that from the documents Annexure P-30, it is amply clear that it is a case of mala fide and tampering of the petitioner's record.

On perusal of Annexure P-30, at best it is noticed that in the first assessment petitioner was awarded 34.5 marks, which after re-evaluation was corrected to 33.5 marks. As aforesaid, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets at the instance of the candidate. However, that cannot debar the authority from re-assessing the papers by resorting to internal mechanism, as has been done in the present case. Moreover, even if the original marks secured by the candidate, as per Annexure P-30 are taken into account i.e. 34.5 marks, the petitioner does not get more marks than the cut off marks i.e. 91 for Schedule Caste.

In any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected.

           (A. M. Khanwilkar)                  (Alok Aradhe)
              Chief Justice                       Judge


AM.