:7,a!S<i^^S..Mi »a-SB»>g5^ <T-;L.;^l~3IEF',T3"5iH?'R..^*;ffiy .S'EP.I>»E,.-.':.<.•..';.•1 A;-:,<BS^S"^!^^..S^i'S?'^? aF;R^|B-i;';!K5%friffi^ <.. .^.^. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. GHHATTIS0ARH * SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION N0.1624 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. 2. Ramesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Singh, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village & Post - Chaugain Distt. Buxar, Bihar ChhaUsgarh Public Service Commission, through it's Chairman Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) The Exam Contrdler Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite RestHouse Pahuna, Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.1637 OF2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Aditya Tiwari, S/o Shri Badrl Vishal Natti Tiwari, aged about 25 years. R/o Village - Langadatar, Post - Rajapur, Sarriya Distt.Faizabad (U.P.) Vs. 1. ChhattiSgarh Publie Service Commission, through it's Chairman Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Putrfic Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.1625 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. Ajay Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Gupta, Aged about 30 years, R/o Gfrdhar KaChouraha, Distt. Mirzapur (U.P.) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, throi^h ifs Ghairman - Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) B& -2-- The Exam Controller ChhatBsgarh Rublic Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr.VinayPandey.learnedcounselforthepetiUonere. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, tearned counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th Aprit, 2006) The point that arises for decision-making in all (hese writ petltions is common. Therefore, all these writ petitions were heard togefter for admission. (2) It was contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners are quite meriterious and in fact, they have secured high percentage of marks in all subjects except in Generat Studies. It is stated that the petitioners have done well in General Studies atso and it is quite surprising how they could be awarded with tower percentage of marks in that subject. In view of this setf-assessment of the pet'rtioners and apprehending that their answer-scripte in General Stadies were not properlyvalued, the petitioners have sought intervenUon ofthe Court. (3) I do not think that the petitionere have made out any ground for judicial review. The self-assessment of the petitioners that they would have got more marks than what is awarded to them tn General Studies, is totally irrelevant for the decision-maklng. The self-assessment eannot be equated to objective assessment made by the respondent -authorities. Secondly, both in terms of human experience and togic, it cannot be said that simply, because, a student has secured high pereentage of marks in a subject, he should necessarily or naturally secure high percentay of —7>- marks in all other subjects also. Thirdly, it is fcirly well setttod by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Stale Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kunnarsheth, etc. the answer-scripte cannot be summoned before the Court either for perusal or for directing secondt revaluation unless frie regulations provide for it. Be ttiat as it may, there is absolutely no material placed before the Court on the baste ofwhich the Court could possibly doubt the falr valuation of the answer-seripts of the petitioners in General Studies. Cumulat'ively, if 1 may say so, these are not frt cases where the Court should step in under Article 228 of the Constitution of India. The wrlt petitlons are, therefore, dismlssed. No cosls. Sd/- ChiefJustice 1. AIR1984 SC 1543 (STs^