Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Pallavi Narvare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44651
1 W.P. No.19767/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 19767 of 2020
KU. PALLAVI NARVARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Raizada - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Akash Lalwani - Advocate for respondent No.2.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
1. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in favor of the petitioner and may kindly command the respondent to make revaluation of the petitioner's answer sheet Annexure P/5, P/6 & P/7 in respect of question numbers as mentioned in Para No.5.4 of the instant petition and accordingly the fresh marks sheet of the petitioner be prepared and be issued.
3. That, any other suitable relief regarding compensation deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had appeared in Class 12th examination conducted by respondents No.1 to 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44651 2 W.P. No.19767/2020 in the year 2019-20. It is submitted that petitioner has not been awarded marks as per the assessment of petitioner in Biology, Physics and English subjects because petitioner is of the view that question Nos.7, 9, 14 & 17 of Biology subject, question Nos.2 & 7 of Physics subject and question Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9(vii), 13 and 14(iv) of English subject have not been checked properly. However, counsel for petitioner fairly conceded that no material has been placed on record to show that the answers given by petitioner were not properly checked.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Admittedly, there is no provision for revaluation.
5. 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 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; NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44651 3 W.P. No.19767/2020 and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
6. 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 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. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44651 4 W.P. No.19767/2020 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."
7. Even if the judgment passed by the Coordinate 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 is considered, still petitioner has failed to point out any exceptional circumstances warranting revaluation of answer-sheets of petitioner by a Court appointed expert. Merely because the petitioner is of the view that her answers were correct, is not sufficient for this Court to direct for revaluation specifically when there is no provision for the same.
8. Since there is no provision for revaluation and petitioner has failed to make out an exceptional circumstance requiring a direction for NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44651 5 W.P. No.19767/2020 revaluation, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
9. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.09.04 15:01:41 +05'30'