''^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. l62-S~OF 2006 PETITIONER: Ajay Kumar, S/o- Shri Ram Chandra Gupta, Aged About- 30 Years, R/o- Girdhar Ka Chouraha, Distt. Mirzapur (U.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: >• ..•<->w' ..•<6.v-"'' Chhattisgarh Public Service Con'imission, through it's Chairman ,.'• ^ ./"' Opposite Rest House Pahuna b--"'y ..•••"" Raipur (C.G.) .** ^ ^,^>/' }%^"2. yy ^v^ t^ The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN_ 0_F_INDIA_FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE. XE-HC—7S sw^t w h-f WR an^l **ii+ ^fj^ '3^ ^nwi, Qflly'Ko, fsioiyy l»J'ft IU& • T-OC^ "^200 ?TTra^ ( •swRR^ftasn^i 05/04/2006: - Shri Vinay Pandey, learr^d counsel for the petiBoner. Notice re-rule. Shri Abhishek Sinha, te^imed standing counsel, takes notice forthe resp<>ndents. Club thiswrit petition withl of 2006 and W.P. No.1637 of 200|B. With the consent of the liarned counsel for the parties, the petitions were Order passed separatel^ dated. '?RFlf^Ni7T 'RW^t "^ 'fel3t <P^.l< ^TSifOTSlI^il W.P. No.1624 leard finally. signed and Sd/- ChiefJustice HiGi-LCOURT^F JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISOARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRIT PETITiON N0.1624 OF 2006 PETITIONER Ramesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Singh, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village & Post - Chaugain Distt. Buxar, Bihar Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through it's Chairman Opposite Rest House PahunaRaipur (C.G.) 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.1637 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Adrtya Tiwari, S/o Shri Badri Vishal Nath Tiwari, aged about 25 years, R/o Village - Langadatar, Post - Rajapur, Sarriya Distt. Faizabad (U.P.) Vs. 1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through it's Chairman Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.1625 OF 2006 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. Ajay Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Gupta, Aged about 30 years, R/o Girdhar Ka Chouraha, Distt. Mirzapur (U.P.) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, throuflh it's Ctiairman - Opposite Rest House Pahuna F^a.ipyr (C.G.) 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, leamed counsel for the respondertts. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th April, 2006) The point that arises for decision-making in all these writ petitions is common. Therefore, atl these writ petitions were heard togettier for admission. (2) lt was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners are quite meritorious and in fact, they have secured high percentage of marks in all subjects except in General Studies. It is stated that the petitioners have done wetl in General Studies also and it is quite surprising how they could be awarded with lower percentage of marks in that subject. In view of this self-assessment of the petitioners and apprehending that their answer-scripts in General Studies were not properly valued, the petitioners have sought intervention of the Court. (3) I do not think that the petrtioners have made out any ground for judicial review. The self-assessment of the petitioners that they would have got more marks than what is awarded to them in General Studies, is totally irrelevant for the decision-making. The self-assessment cannot be equated to objective assessment made by the respondent -authorities. Secondly, both in terms of human experiehce and logic, it cannot be said that simply, because, a student has secured high percentage of markt in a subject, he should necessarily or naturally secure high percantage of /' -s \.f marks in all other subjects also. Thirdly, it is fairly well settted by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. the answer-scripts cannot be summoned before the Court etther for perusat or for directing second revaluation unless the regulations provide for it. Be that as it may, ther»is absolutely no material placed before the Court on the basis of which the Court could possibly doubt the fair valuation of the answer-scripts of the petitioners in General Studies. Cumulatively, if 1 may say so, thpse are not fit cases where the Court should step in under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _^^_— Sd/- ChiefJustice 1. AIR 1984 SC 1543 .5^