g‘krbZ" $i"g¥e aench IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (c) NO. 2V§L OF 2011 PETITIONER éshifo Mishra, daughTer‘ of Shri Pr‘abhaf Mishr'u, aged abouf 13 years, residenT of Krishna Vihar‘, NTPC Township, Jamnipali, Dis’rricf Kor‘ba, a minor Through her na’rural guardian mo’rher Smf. Ra‘rna Mishra, Wife of Shri Prabha’r Mishra, aged abou’r 4O years, residen’r of Krishna Vihar, NTPC Township, Jamnipaii, Disfricf Korba (CG) Vs / RESPONDENTS 1. Union of India, through The Secre’rary, Deparfmen’r of Human Resources, New Delhi. /. 2. STa‘ie of Chha'Hisgarh, fhrough fhe Secrefary, Deparfmen‘r of Schooi Educa’rion, D.K.S Bhawan, Manfraiaya, Raipur (CG) / 3. Na’rional Council for Educafional Research /' and Training, fhrough i’rs 'DirecTor, Aurbindo Marg, New Deihi. minwwmWWWwomwwwiwwwwoi Head, Deparfmem‘ of Educa‘h‘on Measuremenf and Evalua‘rion, Nafional Council for' EducaTional Research and Training, Through its Director, Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi. Sfafe Council for Educafional Research and Training, ’rhr'ough ifs Direc’ror, Shankar' Nagar‘, Raipur‘, ChhaHisgar‘h The Direcfor‘, S‘rafe Council for Educaiional Research and Training, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhaf'iisgarh 4. \01. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3m m m ~\ mw‘&wm mmmw émti-icrqaméa SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan S ‘nrivastava, J. 25-04-201 1 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava', counsé for the petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakeel, counsel for 'espondent No.1 on advance copy. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawye r for the State/respondents No.2, 5 & 6 on advance copy. Heard. By this petition‘ the petitioner has raised two-fold grievance, firstly that on petitioner bringing to the notice of the respondents that some of the model answers are not correct, though the respondents have informed the petitioner that the petitioner‘s answer sheets have been evaluated on the basis of new model answer, the resp nts have not undertaken exercise of valuation according to the Chang d model answers. Secondly, the petitioner had raised a grievance vide er representation dated 22-02-2011 and dated 22~03—2011 (Annexure P-3 Ph4) with regard to the correctness of the model answers of Question No. 2 of S.A.T. and Question No.26 & 27 of M.A.T., which has been wrongly r jeCted. As far as petitioner’s grievance th regard to three model answers nd Question No.26 & 27 of M.A.T. are concerned, i find that the respond nt-S.C.E.R.T. in his communication dated 05—04-2011 & 06-04-2011 (Ann ure P-6 & P-7) have informed that model answers are correct in respe t of those questions. in the writ petition, the petitioner has not demon trated anywhere as to how such a decision of the respondent is illegal, a bitrary or otherwise so outrageous as to warrant interference by this urt in exercise of extra—ordinary ’ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Co stitution of India. In the absence of concerning Question No.22 of S.A.T. [niééfw‘t o e i o §® . W$3agu¢ I mm W WW wW WmaRHE’d $3Tia‘'qm any specific details of those specific questions, model answers and any demonstration by the petitioner in that regard, i am unable to accept that contention. However, other grievance of the petitioner appears to be worth consideration. It has been submitted that in respect of some of the questions, the respondent—S.C.E.R.Tt was admitted that earlier the modei, answers were not correct, but now petitioner’s answers have been evaluated with reference to the changed model answers. If that be so, submission of learned counsel for tte petitioner that the respondents should consider and apply the mo answers for valuation of all the candidates appears to be worth consid rations However, the petitioner has rats d this issue for the first time before this Court and no representation has n made in this regard before the respondent-S.C.E.R.T. Therefore, con idering that the matter relates to valuation of answer sheets in an exam nation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the petitione to make representation before the respondent-S.C.E.R.T. >raising the gri vance. ln case, representation is made, all endeavor shall be made by the respondent-S.C.E.R.T. to take appropriate decision on the same in ccordance with law before start of next stage of examination. The petiti shall make representation to the respondent No.5-S.C.E.R.T. within a pe iod of two days from today. With the aforesaid observation, t e petition is finally disposed off. Certified copy today. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [dew d i e o r