@ HIGH COURT OF CHE-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 6675 ofZMW PETITIONER '. Kn. Pushpalata. Sahu Dfo Madan Lal Sahu (Hirwani), aged about 19 years, resident of viilage Sonhpur, Post Nipanig Tahgil Gumr, District Durg (CG). VERSU§ RESEK‘NDENTS 1 1. Chhattisgarh Board. of Secondary Education, Pension Eada, Raipur (CG), ihrougiy ThE Secretary. 2. T313 Rsgistrar, Cllhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur (CG). 3. The Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Piparchhedi, Disuiot Durg (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agaihotri, J.) Present : SILri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt Advocate for the Statelrespondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 66m of Febmry, 2%8) . The petitioner, who is a stuck-mt of Class 12m in Govt. Higher Secondary School, Piparchhedi, District Burg, appeareé in Class 12m examination held in March, 2007. The petitioner made an applieation for revaluation of Hindi (Special) subject. On revaluation, it was found that there was increase in the marks awarded to the petitioner which was less than 10%, therefore, the marks were not allotted to the petitioner. 2. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that, as per clause 3 of guidelines for revaluation, framed by the Boa d of §eoondary Education if there is variation in marks n revaluation within 10%, the revaluation marks will not he granted to the oandidate. Clause 3 ofthe guidelines reads as under: "3. WWWEWW€HW~W W mmmtrtht mWndWmatlenWWlaestteeafe tgéutmsndemmmmmemw maewe‘twwemwmegfe mattemnm" . I have heard leaned counsel for the parties. On query, Whether he intends to question the validity of the proviSions of clause 3 of guidelines, learned coungel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the validity ofthe clause 3 which provides that if there is variation in marks in revaluation within 10%, the same can not be given effect to. . n the light of provisions of clause 3 of guidelines for revaluation trained I under regulation 119 (2.) and (3) and regulation 148 (2) and (3) of Board of Secondary Education Regulations 196i there is no merit in this case as the respondents have followed the guidelines framed under the provisions of regulations, strictly in accordance with law. . This petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— . Satis‘n K. Agnihotrl Judge Sahu