Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Nitin Kumar Patel vs Board Of Secondary Education on 27 April, 2016
Author: Anurag Shrivastava
Bench: Anurag Shrivastava
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 15623 of 2014
Nitin Kumar Patel
- V/s -
Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Wajid Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Subhash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
27/04/2016 The petitioner was a candidate who had appeared in the 12 th Class examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. He passed the examination in second division and for improving the division he again appeared in the examination in the year 2013-14 and in the said examination in the subject of English and Mathematic as he has been awarded less marks than expected, he has filed this Writ Petition for seeking re-valuation and after obtaining the answer-sheet in the subject of English, he has filed the same and has tried to demonstrate before this court that the answer-sheets have not been evaluated properly.
2. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that for the examination in question under the rules, governing conduct of the examination, there is no provision for re- valuation and in the absence of there being any statutory provision for revaluation in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Ku. Neha Indurakhya Vs. Board of Secondary Education-
2(2003) 3 MPLJ page 368, followed by another Division Bench in the case of Prakash Indurakhya Vs. State of M.P. & others re-valuation of answer-sheets cannot be permitted. However, exercising the limited jurisdiction available to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if a candidate is able to satisfy this court that in the evaluation undertake by the examiner, the same is done in a careless and negligent manner resulting in improper valuation and the same is demonstrated by cogent material, the writ court may exercise its jurisdiction in exceptional cases where error apparent on the face of the record in conducting valuation is made out. That being so, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to demonstrate before us by referring to the question paper of the subject English and answer given by the petitioner to say that there is negligence and carelessness in the evaluation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the questions and answers submitted by the petitioner and the marks awarded by the valuer, we find that the evaluation has been done and marks awarded to the petitioner based on the subjective satisfaction of the valuer. The valuer has evaluated the answer book after considering various aspects of the matter particularly the spelling mistakes, the grammatical errors committed by the petitioner so also the punctuation and various other aspect of the matter. The evaluation done on the face of it cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that it falls under the category of negligent or careless evaluation. On the contrary, the answers given by the petitioner, prima- facie do not meet the required standard and based on the same, if the valuer has exercised his discretion by subjectively looking into the same, we cannot sit over the decision of the valuer by exercising any appellate power and grant any indulgence to the petitioner. Accordingly, finding the case in hands not to be one that falls under the exceptional category 3 warranting reconsideration, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anurag Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
hsp