Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shaurya Gulati vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 13 June, 2016
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CWP No.12420 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12420 of 2016
Date of decision : 13.06.2016
Shaurya Gulati
...Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL.
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see
judgment ?
2. To be referred to reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate for the respondent.
****
AMIT RAWAL, J. (Oral)
Mr. Setia, Advocate has filed short affidavit on behalf of respondent today in the Court. Copy thereof has been supplied to the opposite counsel.
The petitioner is aggrieved of the restriction imposed in the notice dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-1), notifying revaluation of the subjects.
The case of the petitioner is that there is no provision with regard to the revaluation of the theory paper of Physical Education. In this context, he has relied upon notification dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-3), whereby bye- laws have been promulgated which does not envisage any restriction with regard to the revaluation of the subject aforementioned. In this regard, he has 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-06-2016 00:08:16 ::: CWP No.12420 of 2016 -2- also relied upon judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Samarth Mittal Vs. Union of India and others, 2015(6) AD (Delhi) 498, to contend that such notice has already been held to be void in law and CBSE has been directed to conduct the revaluation of the theory examination of Physical Education.
Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that LPA filed against the same judgment is under challenge though there is no interim stay. This fact has also been reflected in the status of the case of LPA No.477 of 2015. He submits that revaluation of the subject only started w.e.f. 26.11.2014. Earlier there was no provision of revaluation of any subject of 10+2.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that once bye-laws do not envisage any restriction of revaluation, CBSE cannot on its own put fetter restricted qua one paper, permitting in others. This view of mine is fortified with the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Samarth Mittal's case (Supra), wherein identical situation has arisen and the CBSE has been directed to conduct the revaluation of theory paper of Physical Education as per bye-laws (Annexure P-3). Even otherwise, once the respondent has permitted to revaluation of the subjects mentioned in the following subjects:-
"English Core, English Elective (CBSE), English Elective (NCERT), Hindi Core, Hindi Elective, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Business Studies, Economics & Accountancy"
there is no rationale behind prohibiting the revaluation of the theory paper of Physical Education.
In view of the aforementioned fact, notice (Annexure P-1) qua 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-06-2016 00:08:17 ::: CWP No.12420 of 2016 -3- petitioner only is hereby quashed.
The present writ petition is allowed.
The respondent shall consider the written request of the petitioner for conducting revaluation of the theory subject of Physical Education, subject to deposit of the usual charges.
On receipt of the request, the respondent shall conduct revaluation and intimate to the petitioner declaration of result within a period of two weeks thereafter.
13.06.2016 (AMIT RAWAL)
pawan JUDGE
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 14-06-2016 00:08:17 :::