r—=-'- CJ ^•1 HOir'BLE S.B. IN THE HIOH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. l772^ of 2004 ^ PETITIONER Sayed Sazid Ali, S/o. Sabab Ali / Aged about l3 years,R/o< Jhalraala v RESPONDENTS Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. The Secretary ^ ^Board of Secondary Education V-S^^^ ^...•-;^'.aipur (C.G.) T%^'' ^'-" PETITION ^••t^ ^* ^V) ^A-'''**'?" The state of chhattisgarh UNDER ARTICLES Through Secretary School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipu^ (C.G.) 226/22^7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE DIRECTIONS^ORDERS OR WRITS INCLUDING WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. XI-HC-22 3TT^T'^T f^iw^n^ 5hHt^ ^fl "s^ ^ww^, ^Ti1<H4t<o, fa^rey 31T^T "q^? i^.P. K^. l?7^/^^o^ "'^ 2^6 H8H^il ^^HT^ ^n^r' ^rTI^I 1'CT^R'^{^[ <^l^i<yt4lr1 H!H<?ff '? feT^> ifa^K ^T3Tf^P?^n^T 13-7-2004 Shri N.K. Chatterjee, counsejl for fhe petitioner, ShriA. K. Tiwari, Paael Law^er for the State/respondents. Heard on admission. The petitioner has preferred |this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India seekidg reUef fhat a writ ia fhe nature of maD^damus or ofher direction fc rechecking of fhe aaswer sheets oJ e issued to the respondents for the petitioner aad further a writ ia the nature of certiorari be issucjd for quashiag fhe result of the petittoner, The case of fhe petitioner examiaation conducted by respo3 Secondary Education, Raipur in] 2004. His Role Number was 1231 fhe petitioner atteiapted to aiiswe^ to fhe best of his kaowledge, He| offhe inarks, aad for fhis purposj spite of fhe representation made done, The petitioner worked ^s that he appeared ia Class-10th ident No.l Chhattisgarh Board of fhe nionfh of Februaiy ~ March [6318. It has been nientioned fhat fhe required nuinber of questions was hurt to know about lus result fhat he has been declared fail ia ti|irce subjects i.e. EngUsh (General), Mafhematics and Science. He j rcquested Respondent No, 1 for recheckmg of fhe aiiswer books bj^ an expert aad also for re-totaUng s he deposited fhe rcquired fees.In by the petitioner nofhiag has been to get good marks ia the exainiaation and ia fhe half ye^rly examination conducted by the school he had secuited gook mark^ I have heard leanied counsejl for the pardes. XI-HC-22 3TTt?r^r f<v114) 371^T <^^\c^ <if^a "^ST ^ii^i<n^, ^nl^^Ko/ f®«ni<H^< *11*<<*11 ^bHl^i 3?T^ ^^K .:. 2-/ozl. '^ 200 'I^ST' cni^F<n4lti 'RPT^f ^ Fs^ <p3l^K ^^Tf;W3TT^T It is sai admitted positjton fhat fhere is no provision of recheckmg/revaluation offhe a^iswer sheets aad only rc-totalliag of fhe niimbers is provided. Qn fhje back offhe mark-sheet it has been provided fhat under the rcgulati| for revaluation of fhe aaswei] )ns ofthe Boacd therc is no provision sheet&,_ Therefore applications for rcvaluation woiild not be acc^pted. ^bcfe fhere is no regulation regarding revaluation of f4e aaswer sheets, therefore the respondent/Board is not entifle^ to revaluate fhe aiiswer sheets, The jurisdiction of fhi^ Court under Article 226 of fhe Constitatiou of India is an extr^ ordmaiy junsdiction. The provision, if any, exists for revaluation of aufhorities are not accediag revaluation then fhe petitioner wherc there is no provision Ifhe answer sheets aad fhe concemed fhe request of ihe petitioner for bias a r^ght to ask for revaluation. But regardiag revaluation of fhe answer sheets in that case ia order to|seek fhe remedy under Article 226 of fhie Constitution of India fhe p^titioner has to inake out a strong and exceptional case to show that aa error which is apparent fr<^ fhe previous acadeniic careerj fhe evaluatiuig person has eonunitted »ia fhe facts, That caa be ascertained looldng to fhe previous acadeiijdc career of fhe petitioner. Lookmg to iri fhe exainiaation aad tiie inarks awarded to tiie petitioner go ijp show that soiae unusual thiag has happened aad the answer sljieets of fhe petitioner has not been evaluated properly. In this li^ht if we look iato fhe petition of fhe petitioner, he has secured ^l ia Hiiidi (Special), 22 ia EngUsh (General), 50 iu Sanskrit (Gen4ral), 20 ia Mafhematics, 43 ia Science aad 60 ia Social science out ojf 100 inarks ia each subjects. There is XI-HC-22 '^oET ^||^iid<LI, ^•al^^Ko, fa<ni<iy *11*<dl Sb<4icb 3ff^r t^ra? ..].^??^...'z<n?.^.."^ 200 "^^8T ^Tr^T^T ^rii<sb 3?n^r sft^i^ ^f^a ^n^r ^<TT^R: ^rftcT cr»l^I<rt<flrl'RPT^lf^ f^st <pii^i< ^5rf^PT37T^T idake notitmig on record, which go to fhat fhe petitioner had excellenl obtamed good marks m aiiy offhp this was fhe first Board Exaaimalion A perusal of fhe petition been able to make out aa iinusual thiag has happened the opmion fhat fhe petitloner to exercise fhe extraordmaiy ji; petition fails aad is disniissed. In view of fhe above disposed of out aa exceptional case to show acadexnic career aad he had ever Board Exaxnmations. It seems fhat of the petitioner, jrcveals fhat fhe petitioner has not case, which shows fhat some tihie petitioner, Therefore, I am on not been able to make out a case y ju^isdiction vested in fhis Court. The exceptional wi(h h^s or4er I.A. No. 4195 of 2004 stands Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tft^ ^Pa^ ^'