Allahabad High Court
Shivani vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160009 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5950 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shivani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishikesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri Rishikesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition is pending as a fresh case for the last more than two years. This Court by order dated 23.09.2021, after noting certain facts, directed re-evaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner by some other Examiner after deposit of a sum of Rs.2000/- by the petitioner.
3. Later on, by another order dated 22.10.2021, it was noted that answer sheet has been re-evaluated and the petitioner has been awarded total marks "63".
4. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to file a short counter affidavit bringing on record the re-evaluated answer sheet of the petitioner. Short counter affidavit has been filed annexing therewith re-evaluated answer sheet which is already on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the question paper annexed to the writ petition and answer sheet annexed to the counter affidavit has argued that question paper contained certain division of marks like 1+1+1 allotted to different segments of the questions and though the petitioner answered the said different segments/parts, she has been awarded consolidated marks and not marks concerning different parts.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that once answer sheet was re-evaluated by one Examiner and, thereafter, after intervention by this Court by another Examiner, marks as per wisdom of the Examiner have been awarded to the petitioner and answer to no question remains unchecked, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I find that petitioner was awarded "53" marks before re-evaluation and "63" marks after re-evaluation. The answers have been checked by the independent Examiner who is an Expert of the subject and merely because the manner in which the marks have been awarded i.e. in a consolidated way, I do not find that it is a fit case for directing further re-evaluation as there is a settled principle that Court cannot act as an expert in all matters especially in educational matters and evaluation done by subject expert is treated to be valid unless there are cogent reasons for taking a different opinion.
8. In the present case, I do not find that any such circumstance exists.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Jyotsana