-""fTC j< -. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ( O^ -T" OF 2006 PETITIONER: Aditya Tiwari, S/o- Shri Badri Vishal Nath Tiwari, Aged About- 25 Years, R/o- Village -Langadatar, Post-Rajapur, Sarriya Distt- Faizabad (U.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: ^ Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through it's Chairman Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Comn'iission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR _IS_SUANC_E OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDERJN_THE LIKE NATURE. HtGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISQARH SINQLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRIT PETITION N0.1824 OF 2006 P6TITIONER •\ Ramesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Shyam Bihari Singh, Agect about 30 years, R/o Village & Post - Chaugain Distt. Buxar, Bihar Vs. RESPONDENTS •V 1. Chhattisgarh Public Sen/ice Commission, through it's Chainnan Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna.Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETIT1QN N0.1637 OF 2006 PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS -*' Aditya Tiwari, S/o Shri Badri Vishal Nath Tiwari, aged about 25 years, R/o Village - Langadatar, Post - Rajapur, Sarriya Distt. Faizabad (U.P.) Vs. 1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through it's Chairman Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Servica Commission, Opposite Rest Howe Pahuna, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.1626 OF 2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. Ajay Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Chandra Gupta, Aged about 30 years, R/o Girdhar Ka Chouraha, Distt. Mirzapur (U.P.) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, throuflh it's Chairman - Opposite Rest House Pahuna Raipur (C.G.) 2-. :^. t.. 2. The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Opposite Rest House Pahuna,Raipur(C.G.) Present: Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitionere. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, leamed counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th April, 2006) The point that arises for decision-making in all these writ petitions is common. Therefore, all these writ petitions were heard together for admission. (2) It was contended by thelearned counsel for th« petitioners that all the petitioners are quite meritorious and in fact, they have secured high percentage of marks in all subjects except in General Studies. It is stated that the petitioners have done wetl in General Studies atso and it is quite syrprising how they could beawarded with lower percentage of marks in that subject. In view of this self-assessment of the petitioners and apprehending that their answer-scripts in General Studies were not properly valued, the petitioners have sought intervention ofthe Court. (3) I do not think that the petitioners have made out any ground for Judicial review. The self-assessment of the petitioners that they would have got more marks than what is avtfarded to them in General Studies, is totally irrelevant for the decision-making. The self-assessment cannot be equated to objective assessment made by the respondent -authorities. Secondly, both in terms of human experience and logic, it cannot be said » . . that simply, because, a student has secured high percentage of marks in a subject, he should necessarily or naturally secura high percantage of •T, marks in all other subjects also. Thirdly, it is fairly well setttod by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State.- Board of *'-.•• Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. the answer-scripts cannot be summoned before the Court either for perusat or for directingsecond revaluation unless the regulations provide for it. Be that as it may, thera is absolutely no material placed before the Court on the basis of which the Court could possibly doubt the fair valuation of the answer-scripts of the petitioners in General Studies. Cumulatively, if 1 may say so, these are not frt cases where the Court should step in under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. , _-.-—--- Sd/- Chief Justice 1. AIR 1984 SC 1543