IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1583 OF 2009 (MS) Rahul Semwal (minor), Through his natural Guardian father Shri Rajendra Prasad Semwal. ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aniruddha Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1 and Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aniruddha Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 2 and 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “a. Issue a writ order or direction in the Certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order/communiqué dated 21.8.2009 passed by the respondent No. 3 filed as Annexure No.-6; b. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the answer copies of the petitioner of Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics subjects before this Hon’ble Court and to re-check/re- evaluate them by independent subject teachers in the presence of guardian of the petitioner and to award such marks, if any, to the petitioner in the aforesaid subjects which he is entitled to according to his performance in the examinations; c. Issue any suitable, writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 d. Award costs of the petition to the petitioner.” Earlier vide order dated 28.7.2009, this Court in Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2009 (MS) had directed the authorities to scrutinize the papers and consequently, the scrutiny of the papers of the petitioner was done, but the marks of the petitioner remained the same. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner is now challenging the scrutiny, which has been done by the respondents, alleging that the same has been done in a routine manner. The matter like the present case, already stands decided by this Court in Kamlesh Singh Rawat (minor) Vs. Board of Schools Education, Uttarakhand, Ramnagar reported in 2009 (1) U.D., 486, where it has been held that interference by the Court as is being prayed for in the present case, cannot be done in a writ petition, particularly where there is no provision for revaluation. This matter stands covered with the judgment of Kamlesh Singh Rawat (supra). This Court finds no ground for interference in this writ petition. The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.12.2009 Rathour