BEFORE THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPCR RESPONDENTS W.P.N&' Of2003. :-^ Kartikeya Dubey, son ofPrabhat Kumar Dubey. \Aged aboutl3 years, minot through his natural Gaurdiah Father Prabhat Kumar Dubey, resident Of Kashdol, Present resident of Qr. No. D-16, ^ Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . V E RS U S (:~-I. District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G), l—AlpanaSenguta, Tabulatoi-iof Eighth Board Examination2003, . ^^^ y~ A'y~-p-^**' »^^s t<^ <^' ••••• lala Chakroborty, Tabulator of Eighfh Board Examination 2003, _4__3^_ Bosamis, Examiner of Eighth Board Examination 2003, All respondent no. 2 to 4 through District Education Officer, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 5. M. Singh Thakur, Principal, Shahid Nutan Higher Secondary School, Ratanpur, District Bila5pur(Chhattisgarh). • ^ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^26&^227 QF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA jtt- T T sil^t ^lfSMi* 'cWT •Sff^ff sFIlN? '3'^^i:!S)ic'i'y%'9^w'o< fst<yiratt?. '... .' (.,),^,: »nwirw*<i<»> gil^l''qa?T('p^3tl) TCTW?ftB 311^1 17.12.2Q04 " 5hri H.B. Agroiwal, cou| 5hri Utkarsk Verma; | No.l.:. •,..'.'..:- . None present on behal) Heard both -ths counj petition. . The lietitioner's .case^ Oass-VIIIexaminationynelei and mark sheet Annexure petitipnet' is •t-l'Krt-^one-^Soyr'^ VDJ of Ideoil -Public-Schoal, with whom respondent No.2 worked as Tabulator in th< resultof the petitiorier as al deliberortely declared ^fail ini Science, therefdre, copjes i Court to vepify the fdct. Returh'hofi t>eeh filed has been specifioally mentiori grand-father 6f th& petitiot| Oixit, Assistaht fiirecton- <*ll«fi't<i)*Mi*4df'?fS'Zt'^tF']«;l<. ^'3ffiHT3II^W : isel for the peti-tioner^ ~ Panel Lawyer fop the Stgte/respondent of other respondents. iel on ythe (juestion of admission of the ^ itfiat irr.the year 2003, fie oppedred in ^Roll No.04747, but he was declared fait p-1 was issued. AAain allegation pf the jbh ^t-ISlckiF was alsa g student of Class- ^jlaspyr.his father's name is'A.tC 1-faldar, Alp<yia Sengupta was residing, and she ^d examination ond mahipultrfed^^^^^ ^a §ourabh HaldarAan<il the petitioner was ttiie subjecTs pf English, AAathenuifics & (f the petitionerybe called before this jpn behalf of respondent No.l in which it ion^d that lookjng to^the allegctipns of the iot^er a cornmittee' consjs;tihg of^Shri S.L. ^IRmt^. ft_ '^nrmn^ ^inri^r.Anwom . GRPRJ—FS/350—12/20QO—5@,OGQ. Hiiiin: j p ai^iw Ri-fw wiran^tWTO .^-~: -^' :3sr '^lRn^Pf, sxfl'y'Ke, I'stellM^ aiA'if'^R' ('jq(y«tl<} uttii^R ^ifta sn^r -^ Higher Secondary School, Memorial Higher Secondaj-y constituted and the committ'^e report Annexure R-l. As mistake in tabulation of the in the marks relating to detected. Accordingly, appri^ Tabulator and she has beeti period of three years and or'dpr I have perused the i para 1 of thaf report it ^as examination the committ^<^l awarded by the examiner tcK sheet are correct. Therefol case of the petitioner. How| glarin9 mistakes were dete^l discrepancy in the marks ob^ cmd the marks mentionedl committee suggested actioi^, respondent No.2. As p^i grcmdfather, the committee ansMef' sbee.ts.nnd. mnrk el'"'i' ^ ^M^twAn ''n'R^f ^f '^(3|^| ^•aiRl*) SK^it; 1fra; iand Shri A. 3'oseph, Ppincipal, KEN ^ School, Kududand, Bdaspur, wgs crfter conducting enqUirysubmi'ttedits jer the report-, the commitfee fouridloo itKirks relating to the petitioiner, jwhereas, ^ourabh Haldar glaring mistakes wepe Ipriate oction has been taken a^nst the tlebarred from tabulation work for. a t&thateffectis Annexupe R-2. : ^port subtnifted By'the committee, Ih^ been specifically mentioned that on Ireached the cdnclusion that the marks |the petitioner and mentioned in the mark ^e, nothmg was deteCted abnormal in the sver, in the case of Sourabh 1-lalddt'some |ted by the committee ond .there wds a ^iined by the petitioner in qli the subjectS in the mark sheet. Accordingly, th® t, accordingly, action was takehogainst the dlls9ations of the petitioriers was Constityted ond it had perused the •tsnnrl re>ac;hpd +|ie (;oB(:lusion thatthere (SSfJ—PSiTS—9l'KXX-5Qff». ^s-;. XI-HIS—78 an^r^Tlnw ^V 'STT^T s»t*licft Soma ii4 ^' IV wwirawrar 's^ -*II<I]CT<I, ®tt)^<i<o,Pn'iiy'y, _^Lx:(^^-^(t^, , TH[2003 311^1'q?!?;' (ipfgq^T) VWft ^lfef 3II^[ Was no disc p<incy in the mentioned in the mark Shee able to make out a case se result of the petitioner. the examiners had not evalui correctly. The only <xll tabulation by respondent Ni exoimined the answer shee' dbnormal was detected by -I 22.3.2004 shows that the Science were shown to leam nothing could be detected substance in this petition. Therefore, the writ p^ itself. :| Consequently,AA.(W.)PJ ebl'4lfl'ift'1 *<lt1<;;ll ^ f3t^ <Rn+$i< ^affiPT3lA'?I marks obtained by the petjtioner and f. Assuch, the petitioner has not been s^eking interference by this Court in the Th4re are no altegations in the petjtion that jited the answer sheets of the petitioner leg4tion is that manipulation was done in liji.2 on which the committee hadalready \s and the marks sheets, and nothing Ihe said committee. Or-der sheet dated 4nswer books of English, Mathematics & i^d counsel for the petitioner and in that libnonmal. As such,! do not find any ttition is disntissed at the admissionstage ||s)o.l987/2003 stondsdisposed of. Sd/- LC.Bhados i Judge ,> ^- ,u\