IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1944 of 2008 (M/S) Ravindra Singh S/o Sri Vikram Singh R/o Dhhungi Jamnakhal Patti Bangarsaun, District Pauri Garhwal. ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. Board of School Education Uttarakhand, Ramnagar Distt. Nainital through its Secretary 2. Joint Secretary (Scrutiny) Board of School Education, Ramnagar, District Education, 3. Scrutiny Committee Under the control and supervision of Board of School Education, Uttarakhand Ramnagar, District Nainital. ………….. Respondents Mr. Tej Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Sirohi and Mr. V.P. Kaparwan, Advocates for respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 01.08.2008, passed by the Joint Secretary (Scrutiny), Board of School Education, Uttarakhand. A further mandamus has been sought directing the 2 respondent No. 2 for re-checking of the answer sheet relating to the Mathematics paper of the petitioner. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner appeared in the High School examination for the year 2007-08 with Roll No. 0068588 with subjects Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science and Painting from Government Inter College, Jamnakhal, Patti Bangarsaun, District Pauri Garhwal. The respondent Board appears to have awarded 003 marks to the petitioner in Mathematics. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1171 (M/S) of 2008. The petitioner had sought scrutiny of his Mathematics paper which appears to have been done. By the impugned order (copy Annexure -4 to the writ petition) the petitioner has been communicated vide letter dated 01.08.2008 that no error was found to have been committed and there was no change in the marks, after scrutiny. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, his Court is of the view that re-checking of the answer sheets cannot be allowed, as the same is not provided in the rules. In the scrutiny, it is examined whether, any answer to a question is left unmarked or whether, there is error in the aggregate in the marks obtained, or not. The scrutiny which is provided under the rules appears 3 to have been made and there appears to be no change in the marks of the petitioner. 5) In the circumstances in this second round of litigation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim Relief Application No. 7260 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 03, 2008. H.Negi