IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23144 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MINOR SREELAKSHMI E.S., AGED 16, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN E.B.SURESH BABU, AGED 48, S/O.EDATHADAN BHASKARAN, ALOOR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.1630-A, BLOCK 16, MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI - 600 040. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SARASWATHY VIDYA NIKETHAN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODAKARA. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 ADV.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23144/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE MARK LIST. P2. COPY OF THE PROFICIENCY CERTIFICATE FOR 2005-06. P2A. -DO- 2006-07. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO R2. P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM R2. P5. COPY OF THE RULES FOR VERIFICATION. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.23144 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner appeared for the 10th Standard examination conducted by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 marklist. Dissatisfied with the marks obtained by her in Hindi, she applied for revaluation. However, instead of revaluation, only verification of marks was done and she was informed that there is no change in the marks. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. According to the petitioner, consistently she has been scoring very high marks in Hindi and, therefore, low marks now obtained can only be on account of some mistakes in valuation. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P5 rules, which do not provide for revaluation of answer papers. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “1. Issue appropriate writ order or direction to Quash Exhibit P4. 2. Appropriate writ order or direction to declare that Exhibit P5 rules governing the verification is against the spirit and intention of rules meant for revaluation of answer sheets. 3. Issue appropriate writ order or direction to the 2nd respondent to revalue, Hindi Course-B, answer sheet of the petitioner and to communicate the results. 4. Such other writ order or direction that this honorable court deem fit to grant in the course of the proceedings.” 2. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 3. Admittedly rules do not provide for revaluation of answer w.p.c.23144/08 2 papers. The petitioner cannot, as of right, claim that even without rules, revaluation of her answer papers should be done. The petitioner cannot also require the respondents to provide for revaluation of answer papers of the examination. It is the discretion of the respondents to provide for the same. There is no law which mandates providing for a rule for revaluation. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition as such. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no other remedy to get the injustice done to her properly redressed. I do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner can very well apply for a copy of the answer paper by resort to the proceedings under the Right to Information Act. If the petitioner finds that her answer paper has been improperly valued, she can very well challenge the valuation itself. Therefore, I make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not affect such right of the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge