HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P.998 of 2003 (MS) Mananand Bhatt versus State of another Approved for reporting. Date of decision: 1 October 2003 Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.998 of 2003(MS) Maha Nand Bhatt s/o Sri Shet Ram Bhatt R/o Sukhidhang, Champawat ……. Petitioner Versus 1. Uttaranchal Siksha Evam Parisha Parishad Ramnagar, District Nainital 2. Secretary, Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad, Ram Nagar, District Nainital 3. Principal, G.I.C. Sukhidhang, District Champawat …. Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner Sri N.C. Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondents. Dated: October 1, 2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon J. The present writ petition has been filed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for revaluation of answer of the petitioner’s High School Examination 2003. The petitioner has alleged that his son namely Jai Prakash appeared in the High School Examination in the year 2003 from Government Inter College Sukhdhang, Champawat. On 30.6.2003 result of High School Examination was declared by the respondents which was published in the news paper on 1.7.2003. The petitioner was shocked to see that he had been given only 7 marks in math first paper and 14 marks in Math second paper out of 100 marks. As the result the petitioner’s son was failed in the examination. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the revaluation of answer book is concerned the same is not permissible in view of the various authorities of the Apex Court and High Courts. The Apex Court in Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. Dean B.J. Medical College, 1992 (2) SCC 220: AIR 1992 SC 917,Arun Desai vs. High Court of Bombay through Chief Justice, reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 372, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarasheth AIR 1984 SC 1543 was held that evaluation of answer book is not permissible and the same does not attract the principle of nature justice. Relying upon the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Allahabad High Court also taken the same view in a case Subhash Chand and others vs. State of U.P. and others (2001)2 UPLBEC 1085 and Mobeen Ahmad Ansari vs. State of U.P. and others ( 1999) 1 UPLBEC 603 Rule 21Chapter XII of U.P. Education Code, provides as under: 21. mu ifj{kkfFkZ;ks dh mRrj iqfLrdk;sa tks eq[; ijh{kk esa dsoy ,d fo”k; ml fo”k; ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 5 izfr’kr vadks ls vf/kd ls mRrh.kZ ugh gSa fcuk ‘kqYd vFkok vkosnu i= ds lafujhf{kr dh tk;sxhA vU; ijh{kkFkhZ tks viuh mRrj iqLrdsa lafujhf{kr djkuk pkgrs gS fufEufyf[kr fu;esa ds vuqlkj djk ldrs gSA d- dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ tks ifj”kn }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kk esa izfo”V gqvk gs fo”k;ks ds vius vadks dh lafujh{kk }kjk iqu% tkWp djkus ds fy, vkosnu i= ns ldrk gSA [k- ,sls leLr vkosnu i=ksa ds lkFk dks”k pkyku dh ,d izfrfyfi ;g fn[kkrs gq, 20 #i;s izfr fo”k; dh nj ls fu/kkZfjr ‘kqYd ns fn;k x;k gS] vo’; gksuh pkfg,A mRrj izns’k ls ckgj ds lhku ls vkosnu i= Hkstus okys ijh{kkfFkZ;ks ds lEcU/k esa ;g ‘kqYd lfpo ds dk;kZy; esa izsf”kr iksLVy vkMZj vFkok LVsV cSad vkQ bafM;k dh bykgkckn ‘kk[kk ij jsf[kr cSad MkQV }kjk Hkstk tkuk pkfg, x- ,sls leLr vkosnu i= ijh{kkQy dh frfFk ls rhl fnuksa dh vof/k ds vUnj vo’; fn;s tkus pkfg,A The aforesaid rule (Ka) contains the provisions regarding scrutiny iqu%tkWp of the answer books. The provision is self explanatory and the Board has power to scrutinise the answer books in accordance with Rule (ka) of Rule 21. The rule gives ample power to the Board to help and assist the students who are desirous of getting their answer books scrutinized. There lies deference between scrutiny and revaluation. The provisions as referred above contains the provision of lafujh{kk which can be termed as scrutiny of answer books and it may also be called as iqu%tkWp whereas revaluation has been defined in the Legal Glossary as iquZewY;kWdu . Thus it is clear that only scrutiny iqu%tkWp of answer books is available to a student and there is no provision of valuing the answer books again. Moreover, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person so as to file the present writ petition; therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. However, since the petitioner is not an aggrieved persons and he is seeking relief in respect of Jai Prakash Bhatt who has appeared in examination, this order will not preclude the student namely Jai Prakash to move for scrutiny in accordance with rule 21 of Education Manual as stated above. This order will also not preclude Sri Jai Prakash to file a fresh writ petition, if he is so advised. Subject to aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 01.10.2003 *Dhyani