IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9287 of 2007 ANSHU SINHA Versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD ----------- 3. 09/09/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Board. In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to re- evaluate the answer book of the petitioner of Mathematics Paper-II of I.Sc. Examination 2005 and/or for scrutiny of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said answer book and for grant of consequential benefits. It is stated that in Mathematics Paper-II petitioner has obtained only 12 marks. He was surprised to see his marks and therefore, he applied for scrutiny of his answer book of the said paper and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.150/- vide Bank Draft dated 28.6.2005. Petitioner approached the respondent Board several times but since no action was taken, he filed this writ application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that answer book of the petitioner of Mathematics Paper-II was scrutinized and no - 2 - change was found in the marks obtained by him which was communicated to the Principal, Mahabodhi College, Belaganj, Gaya by registered post on 21.11.2005. It is stated that there is no provision in the regulation of the Board for re-evaluation of the answer books. Petitioner has filed this writ application in 2007, i.e. after two years of communication of the result of scrutiny. Learned counsel for the Board submits that as per clause 19 of the Regulation of the Board, answersheets are preserved only for six months and thereafter the same are disposed of. She submits that the answer book of the petitioner was already scrutinized and the result of the same was communicated to the College, and therefore, as per said regulation, answersheets of the petitioner as well as other candidates of the Session were disposed of. Since the answsersheet is not available now, there is no question of any further scrutiny or re-evaluation. She also submits that under the regulation there is no provision of second scrutiny also. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. - 3 - In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Sheodhari Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 PLJR 270. In that case, examination was conducted in 1985 and the petitioner of the case not being satisfied with the same had moved the court immediately i.e. on 27.2.1985. Respondents were directed to seek instruction and file affidavit in the matter. Thereafter, there was long delay in taking up the matter by this Court. Finally in 1989 the matter was taken up. The Court was informed that the answersheet of the petitioner was lost. In that situation this Court held that the petitioner should not suffer due to delay caused in the hearing of the matter by the Court, and therefore, this Court directed for grant of average marks to the petitioner in the Paper, answersheet of which was said to have been lost. In the present case, upon his own showing, petitioner has moved this Court after two years. In the meanwhile, Regulation 19 has come to play and as per the said regulation answersheet of the petitioner as well as others - 4 - were disposed of. No delay can be attributed in the matter to this Court, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for grant of average marks in the paper in absence of the answersheet. Moreover, since once answersheet of the petitioner had already been scrutinized and result of which had already been communicated, petitioner is not entitled for re-scrutiny or re-evaluation. In the result, there is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)