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. 837 of 2004 (M/S) Shailesh Chauhan Vs Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad and others. Approved for reporting ___________________ Not Approved for Reporting Date of decision 03.9.2004. Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAIANITAL Writ Petition No. 837 of 2004 (MS) Shailesh Chauhan … Petitioner Versus Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad and others ..Respondents Writ Petition No. 834 of 2004 (MS) Kumari Vishwa Dipika … Petitioner Versus Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Parisha Parishad and others ..Respondents Dated: 3.9.2004 Hon. Rajesh Tandon J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the present writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for 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, has held as under: “In deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normal 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. Paritosh 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 mRrh.kZ ugha gS 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 gSa A 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 gS A [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 izf’kr iksLVu vkMZj vFkok LVsV cSad vkQ bafM;k dh bykgkckn “kk[kk ij jsf[kr cSad MkQV }kjk Hkstk tkuk pkfg, Ax- ,sls lEkLr 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 scrutinized. 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 petitioners to apply for scrutiny of their answer books 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 petitioners and their guardians along with the assistance of subject expert, after giving notice to the petitioners by or before 5th October, 2004. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Tandon J.) 3.9.2004 *Dhyani