IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13856 of 2008 VEDANT (MINOR) Versus THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY ----------- 2. 17.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.S.E. The petitioner was a student of Class X and appeared at the annual examination March, 2008. He is aggrieved by the marks allotted to him in English language as 74, when he claims that he should have secured at least 90% marks. All that the Court shall state at this stage is that the claim is based on a self assessment of the petitioner. Obviously, this self assessment has not reflected in his marks and because of which he is aggrieved. That he may be a good student otherwise shall not per se render the marks incorrect unless substantive ground of challenge are made out. No such ground has been urged presently. The petitioner is stated to have applied for verification of his marks under clause 61 of the Examination Bye-laws of the C.B.S.E. as updated till December, 2004. It provides for an application to be made before the Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification is to be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totaling of marks for each question and that such marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book. The clause specifically prohibits revaluation of the answer - 2 - book. Clause 61 (vii) provides that such verification is to be done by an officer appointed by the Chairman. Under clause 61(ix) the communication is then to be sent to the candidate. Quite obviously in the event of a controversy with regard to this re-totaling of marks, the Chairman steps in under clause 61 (xii). Presently, the ground urged is that the communication after verification has been sent by the Section Officer and is not a communication from the Chairman. There is no pleading in the writ application that the person who made verification was not nominated by the Chairman. Likewise, there is no pleading of any controversy raised by the petitioner on the verification requiring intervention of the Chairman. The mere communication thereof by the Section Officer/Assistant Secretary shall not render illegal an order otherwise legal. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated in view of the provisions of the bye-laws he cannot seek revaluation of the papers. It need not be reiterated that the law stands well settled that if there is no provision for revaluation, the Court also cannot direct to that effect. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions as aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)