HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 749 (M/S) 2004 Km. Neelam Chaudhary Versus. Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad and others. Approved for reporting. __________________ Not approved for reporting Date 13.8.2004. Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 749 of 2004 (M/S) Km. Neelam Chaudhary ….. Petitioner. Versus Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad and others. …Respondents. Writ Petition No. 752 of 2004 (M/S) Km. Soni Bhandari ….. Petitioner. Vs Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad and others. …Respondents. Dated: 13.8.2004 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revaluate as well as to scrutinize their answer books of respective subjects of High School and Intermediate Examination 2004, conducted by Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parishad. So far as the revaluation of answer books is concerned the same is not permissible in view of the various authorities of the Apex Court and High Courts. The Apex Court in Bhushan Uttam Khare vs. Dean B.J. Medical College, 1992 (2) SCC 220: AIR 1992 SC 917, h as held as under: “In deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matter falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice.” The Apex Court in Arun Desai vs. High Court of Bombay through Chief Justice, reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 372, has held as under: “Students who fail in their examinations are generally prone to make allegations that the assessment of their answer scripts is defective, arbitrary or partial to explain their failure and to console themselves with the thought that not they but the examiners are to be blamed for that.” The Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Parithos Bhupesh Kumarasheth AIR 1984 SC 1543 has held that evaluation of answer book does not attract the principle of natural justice. The observations of the Apex Court are as under: “A process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to the examines is involved.” Coming to the argument with regard to the scrutiny, Rule 21 Chapter XII of U.P. Education Code, provides as under: 21- mu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh mRrj iqfLrdk;sa tks eq[; ijh{kk esa dsoy ,d fo"k; ml fo"k; ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 5 izfr’kr vadks ls vf/kd ls mRrhZ.k ugh gSa fcuk “kqYd vFkok vkosnu i= ds lafujhf{kr dh tk;sxhA vU; ijh{kkFkhZ tks viuh mRrj iqLrdsa lafujhf{kr djkuk pkgrs gSa fuEufyf[kr fu;esa ds vuqlkj djk ldrs gSaA d- dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ tks ifj"kn }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kk esa izfo’V gqvk gS fo"k;ksa ds vius vadks dh lafujh{kk }kjk iqu% tkWp djkus ds fy, vkosnu i= ns ldrk gSA [k- ,sls leLr vkosnu i=ksa ds lkFk dks’k pkyku dh ,d izfrfyfi ;g fn[kkrs gq, 20 #i;s izfr fo"k; dh nj ls fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ns fn;k x;k gS] vo’; gksuh pkfg,A mRrj izns’k ls ckgj ds lkhu ls vkosnu i= Hkstus okys ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa ;g 'kqYd lfpo ds dk;kZy; esa izsf’kr iksLVy vkMZj vFkok LVsV cSad vkQ bafM;k dh bykgkckn 'kk[kk ij jsf[kr cSad MkQV }kjk Hkstk tkuk pkfg, x- ,sls leLr vkosnu i= ijh{kkQy dh frfFk ls rhl fnuksa dh vof/k ds vUnj vo’; fn;s tkus pkfg,A The aforesaid rule (Ka) contains the provisions regarding scrutiny iqu%tkWp of the answer books. The provision is self- explanatory and the Board has power to scrutinize the answer books in accordance with Rule (ka) of Rule 21. The rule gives ample power to the Board to help and assist the students who are desirous of getting their answer books scrutinised. In the case of Vaibhave Pandey vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (1998) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1501, directions were given for checking the answer books in presence of guardian of the petitioner. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case Mobeen Ahmad Ansari vs. State of U.P. and others (1999) 1 UPLBEC 603 as under: “It is a matter of great concern that in the recent years there is consideration influx of such writ petitions in this Court has increased. Earlier the Board of High School and Intermediate Education had inspired so much confidence that seldom writ-petition were filed. Filing of writ petition on such a large scale before this Court indicate that there is considerable dissatisfaction among the students and their parent which requires introspection by the Board authorities as well although this Court seldom interfere in the revaluation of the marks, but with a view to have greater accountability and transparency there is a need for framing some certain rules to rectify the error, mistakes or defection calculation of the marks.” In view of the aforesaid facts, liberty is given to the petitioner to apply for scrutiny of his answer book according to Regulation 21 of Chapter XII of Education manual Act. If such an application is filed, the respondents are directed to scrutinize the answer books in presence of the petitioner and his guardian along with the assistance of subject expert, after giving notice to the petitioner by or before 5th October 2004, Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Tandon J.) 12.8.04 *Dhyani