Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Divya Rajpoot vs Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Madhya ... on 19 July, 2024

Author: G. S. Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

                                      1                W.P. No.19129/2024


 IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
                      ON THE 19th OF JULY, 2024
                  WRIT PETITION No. 19129 of 2024
                        DIVYA RAJPOOT
                             Versus
           MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA MANDAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:
Shri Rajneesh Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to revaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner with regard to the Subject Code- 410 i.e. Agriculture, Science and Mathematics wherein the petitioner has been granted only 84 marks out of 100 whereas in other subjects the petitioner has been granted more than 90 marks, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner had appeared in Higher Secondary Examination. The faculty of the petitioner was Agriculture.

Petitioner has been given only 84 marks out of 100 in Agriculture, Science and Mathematics, whereas in other subjects petitioner has secured more than 90 marks. Petitioner obtained copy of her answer sheet and found that certain answers have been incorrectly checked or marks have not been given properly and accordingly, a representation was made but the representation has fallen on deaf ear and the same has been rejected by order dated 11/06/2024 on the ground that there is no provision for revaluation.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sharinath Das Gupta Vs. Board of Secondary Education reported in 2018 (3) M.P.L.J. 76 has held that under exceptional circumstances revaluation can be directed and therefore, it is prayed that the answer-sheet may be directed to be revaluated.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It is an undisputed fact that there is no provision for revaluation.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 52 has held as under:-

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the 3 W.P. No.19129/2024 Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re- evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."

7. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Tripura Through The Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. by order dated 6/2/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.1264/2019 has held as under:-

"18. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could 4 W.P. No.19129/2024 not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of revaluation.

19. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks.

20. Should the second circumstance be demonstrated to be present before the writ court, can the writ court become helpless despite the vast reservoir of power which it possesses? It is one thing to say that the absence of provision for revaluation will not enable the candidate to claim the right of evaluation as a matter of right and another to say that in no circumstances whatsoever where there is no provision for revaluation will the writ court exercise its undoubted constitutional powers? We reiterate that the situation can only be rare and exceptional."

8. If the facts of the present case are considered, then it is clear that neither petitioner has pointed out the books which were referred by her 5 W.P. No.19129/2024 nor has filed any copy of the same to show that the answers written by petitioner are correct. Since, most of the answers were subjective in nature, therefore the valuation done by the Invigilator authorized by the Board cannot be given go-by in the light of self-assessment made by the petitioner.

9. Since there is no provision for revaluation and no exceptional circumstances have been pointed out by counsel for petitioner, therefore no direction can be given to the respondents for revaluation of the answer sheets.

10. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.07.20 17:28:48 +05'30'