FE'HWGNERS RESPONDENTS Present : This petition is filed by the fathers of the chiidren, who appeared in 8‘“ Board Examination eonducted by the Examination Board, for revaiua‘tion of the answer sheets of the chiidren of the petitioners. The resnondenis- No. 1 to 3 vide their return dated 27.06.2006 submitted as under : 2 ...... Atthat time the petitioners’ chiidren appeared in Vlllm Board Examination as a regular student from SaraewatiShishu Mandir, Lormi (C.G.) and thereafter r resuit was declared and they couidesucceed. And after getting the mark sheet they appiied for revaluation. Then a K—‘\ E7 t Jayanti Prabhakar Rao, Slo. Late Jayanti' Naminham Rao, aged about 43 years. Framed Kumar Agrawai, aged abcut 40‘years. Sharad Upadhyay, aged abcut 4'1 years. VA” are resident of Lormi, Dismc’: B‘daspur. Versus 1. 0(. The State of Chhattisgarh, thrsugh the Secretary, Department of Scheoi Educatian, Mantraia D.K.S. Buiidin‘g Ra§pur (CG), Districi Education Officer, Biiaspur (CG) The ?rinc§pai, Govt. Hr. Secondary Schooi, Lakherah, Disirict Biiaspur. The Principal, Saraswati Shishu Mandir Lormi, Dismct Bilaspur‘ h) G R D E R (Passed on 5‘“ April, 2G0?) 'HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Satieh K. Agnihotri WRIT PETITION NO. 1469 OF 2002 $mt. indira Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Deepali Pandey, P.i_. for the State. y, “ Wmmbm C the respondent No. 2 had received application for revaluation and thereafter District Educaiion Officer has infermed the petitioners ihat it is not pcssibie to show answer sheet becau$e the institutionlschoo! of reshondani No 4 was net seieca‘ed in a iist where random Vid‘n was prowded cven inee is no prowswn for revaiuationr’recountmg m ciass Viiim examination is provided, hence the petiticner has med this petition against the rejection of revaluation appiication". 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to controvert the same except that under provision of the Right to iniormation Act, the children of the petitioners have right to know marks and revaluation thereafter. She further submits that the petitioners have made representations to the Collector vide letter dated 08.05.2002 (Annexure P—s), to the District Education Oi‘iicer Vide letter (Annexure P-7}, to the Coliector vide letter dated 14.05.2002 (Annexure P—8) and vide letter dated 30.08.2002 {Annexure P-9). Ku. Smite Upadhyay daughter of Shared Kumar Upadhyay (Petitioner No.3) has received a letter dated 18.06.2002 (Annexure P40} from the District Education Officer, Biiaspur stating that the School has inbuiit system of revaluation by picking up i0% answer sheets. On revaluation, nothing irregular was found. Each and every answer sheet cannot be revaluated on the basis of the application made by the parents or by the students. 3) in the light of the clear submissions made by the respondents No. 1 to 3, it is evident that there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets; in absence of any provision no direction can be issued for revaluation of the answer sheets. Even otherwise, the examination has taken place in the year 2002. Children of the petitioners must have reached to the higher classes and grant of revaluation at this stage, atter a period of five years would be a futile exercise. 4) in View of the foregoing, the petition stands dismissed. 2% / sol- atishK Agmhom 7. udge 2/2’