i^— HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION N0. 2065 OF 2003 POST FOR ORDER ONlL^^July. 2003. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge PETITIONER Prabhat Kuuiar Paftiak, aged 17 years, fhrough Guardian (father) Naiid Gopal Pathak, S/o Shri Kedar Nafh Patihiak, aged 50 years, R/o Pafhak Colony, Jashpumagar, Distorict- Jayhpiu- (C.G.). • Versus- 5SPONDBNTS 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through its Secretary, Deparfaaient of School Education, Mantralaya DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhatdsgarh Board of Secondaiy Education, Raipur fhrugh its Secretaiy, Pcnsion Bada, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Principal, Lufhran Higher Secondary School, Ichkela, Jashpum.agar. c^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPBTITION N0. 2065 OF 2003 ORDBR ^feJuly, 2003) ,y Justice L. C. Bhadoo. The petitioner has preferred fhis petition uiider Article 226/ 227 of fhe Constitution of India for seekiag aii order froni this Court to call for fhe entire record and direct fhe Respondent No.2 to revaluate fhe Physics aad Matheniatics paper of the petitioner of fhe Higher Secondaiy School Certi&cate Examiaation 2003 conducted by fhe Respondent No.2. Peliliouei ?s peliUou is lliat he has remained a good student ia his school cai'eer. The petitioner had appeared ia fhe exaraiaation 2003 conducted by fhe Respondent No.2 from Lufhraa Higher Sccondary School, Ichkcla, Jashpuraagar. As fhe petitioner is a hanl worldng student aad had done extreinely weU ia fhe PETITIONER Prabhat Kiimar Pathak, aged 17 years, fhrough Guardian (fafher) Naad Gopal Pathak, S/o Shri Kedar Nafh Pafhak, aged 50 years, R/o Pathak Colony, Jashpuraagar, Distdct- Jashpur (C.G.). =a Versus- RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretaiy, Departaient of School Education, Maatoralaya DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur fhrugh its Secretary, Pension Bada, Raipur 3. Principal, Lufhraa Higher Secondaiy School, Ichkela, Jashpiiraagar. sw^ exainmLation, he was quite hopeful to get passed ia the exajiiitiation with good m.aj:ks but shockiag to the conscious of the petitioner in the resiilt announced by fhe Respondent No.2 fhe name of fhe petitloner has been placed ia fhe array of fhe students who have been awarded suppleinentaiy. After seeiag the raark sheet the petitioner was shocked fhat in inost arbitrary inaaner only 9 m.arks have been awarded ia Physics, not only fhis io. fhe paper of Mafhematics only 54 marks have been given to Tiim contrary to his expectations. The petitioner is filmg herewith tlie qiiestiou paper aad aa aaswer book ia which the petitioner has toried to reproduce fhe aaswers of fhe question as done by Tiim ia fhe examiiiation along wifh model aaswers given m fhe staadard books. The petitioner had submitted an appUcation for verification of inarks to the Secrctar}^ of Chhattisgarh Board of Secondaiy Education, but siace fhere is no rule wifh regaixl to fhe revaluation aad froni fhe aaswers giveu by fhe petitioner ia fh.e examin.ation it is apparent fhat fh.e answer books of the petitioner bas been valued ia arbitraiy inanner aad the nature of answers ia bofh the subjects are not of descriptive nature, fherefore by fhe revaluatiou of fhe aaswer books the iajustlce conunitted by ftie Board wifh fhe petitioner caii be rectified. The petitioner is haviag a bright futoiLre ahead; due to fhe arbitraiy action of fhe respondents his entire career wiil be ruiaed. I have heaid kaiiied consul for ttie peutioner. He subinitted fhat fhe petitioner is a brlUlant student aad he answered raost of fhe questions ia fhe paper of physics aad niafhieinatics but to his uttcr surprisc fhc nunibcrs awarded ia both fhe papers are not ^, Sa as expected by fhe petitioner fherefore fhe Respondent no,2 be directed to revaJ-iiate the ajiswer sheets of fhe petitioner. 4. Tt is aclTnitted position t.Tiat fhere is no provisiou for revaluatlon of fhe answer sheets aad only recheckkig of fhe nurabers obtaiaed at the exaraiaation caa be done. If there is no regulation regardiag revaluatiou of fhe aiiswer sheets fhen how fhe respondents caa revaluate the aiiswer sheets leam.ed counsel for f&e petitioner was not able to give aiiswer to this quarry. He simply argued fhat fhe action ofthe respondents is arbitrary aad aiiswer sheely have uot been evalualcd ui a expected raanner. 5. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is aa extra ordinaiy jurisdiction. If aay, provision exists for re-valuation of fhe aaswer sheets aad the concenied aufhonties are uot accedmg the request of fhe petitioner for re- valuatiou of fhe aaswer sheets, fhen thc petitioner has a right to ask for revaliiation. But where fhere is no provision regarding fhe re-valuation of the auswer sheets, in that case ia order to seek tl^e i-emedy iinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India fhe petitioner has to inake out a strong and exceptional case showing error apparent ia fhe xnatter of evaluation of his aaswer sheets, based on tibie previous acadeiaic career artd other relevant niaterial fhrough which it caa be assessed fhat the career of the petitioner has been extremely good aad lookmg to his past record fhis time something has been done unusual by the examiaer while evalualiiig Uie aaswer sheels of fhe physics aad inaflieiuatics. Then aad fhen this Coui~t caii pass aa order ui favour of fhe petitioner for revaluation of fhe aaswer sheets, considcrmg thc casc of the petitioncr as exceptional case, Because there is a prcsuinption of tlie State action aad fhe 7. burden is on fhe person who alleges arbitrariness on fhe part of the aiithority ajid to prove fhe assertion sonie strong raaterial miist be on record. However^ where there is no plausible reason or prmciple is iadicated nor is it disceraible and fhe impugned action fherefore appears to be ex-facie, arbitorary, the iaitial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged shtfting onus on the State to justify its action as fair aiid reasonable. Now, in order to ascertam as to whefher fhe petitioner has been able to inake out a pruna facie exceptional case ia his favour so as to euable tliis Court lo pass aa appropriate order m favour of fhe petitioner, no record has been annexed ia fhis petition by the petitioner showmg his previous academic career m order to ascertaia tih.at fhe petitioner is a briUiaat student. A cursory glance 011 fhe inark sheet issued by the respondent which is enclosed as Aruiexurc P/1 shows that apart froin fhe inafheinatics aad physics fhe petitioner has got only 38 numbers out of 100 raarks ia English (General) aiid got only 47 niarks out of 100 marks in Cliemistry. A bare penisal of fhis mark sheet reveals fhat the petitioner is an average student aad based on fhis inark sheet fhis Court is uot convinced fhat fhe answer sheets of fh.e petitioner are evaluated in. unusual iiiaaner. In the result fhe petitioner is not able to m-ake out an exceptlonal case for exercisiag discretionary jurisdiction ia his favour, As such fhis peution has no force, fhe same is Uable to be dismissed aiid is disudssed accordingly. ____——— Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge w^'^