1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.5944 of 2008 Kishor Manohar Suryawanshi, age 22 years, occ. student, r/o. Gurukrupa Niwas, Dr. Hedgewar Chowk, At Mukhed, taluka Mukhed, district Nanded. - - - Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Commissioner, Maharashtra State Council for Education, 17, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune - 1. - - - Respondents Shri A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitoner. Shri S. K. Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No. 1. Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 14th September 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ for quashing the Order dated 23-10-2007 passed by respondent No.2 2 thereby canceling whole performance of the petitioner in the examination of November 2006 and for direction to the respondent No.2 to declare the result of one subject of 1st year of B. Ed. course. 2. This is second round of litigation. In an earlier round, this Court had remanded the matter as it had found that the petitioner was not given ample opportunity of defending his case. On remand, the authority has maintained the order and found that the petitioner had indulged into mal-practice and, therefore, has cancelled the performance of the examination of the petitioner in the examination conducted in November 2006. 3. To test the correctness of the contention of the petitioner, respondent no.2 has produced on record the original file including the answer sheet answered by the petitioner. 4. Though we are aware about the limitation of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that we cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of respondent No.2 and that our jurisdiction is only limited to examine as to whether the approach adopted by the respondent No.2 was perverse, however, taking into 3 consideration the fact that the petition involves career of a student, we have examined the original answer sheet which is produced for perusal of this Court. From the perusal of the answer sheet, it is clear that the petitioner has in the main answer sheet kept pages 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 vacant. These are pages on which not a single word is written. Apart from it, there are several pages wherein answers have been written on earlier part of the pages and the remaining pages have been kept vacant. When the petitioner had not utilized so many pages in the main answer sheet, it is difficult to understand as to what was the propriety of taking supplementary answer sheets. A perusal and the comparison of the main answer sheet along with supplementary answer sheet would reveal that there is vast difference in the pattern in which the answers are written. While pages after pages are kept vacant in the main answer sheets, the supplementary answer sheets are utilized fully. 5. In this view of the matter, we find that it cannot be said that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is either vitiated on the ground of non application of mind or taking into consideration the irrelevant material or failing to take into consideration relevant material. Neither can it be said that the approach adopted by the 4 respondent no.2 is arbitrary or perverse. Needless to state that these are only limited areas or grounds on which power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised by this Court sitting in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any case is made out in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though one may have highest degree of sympathy with the student, however, the equitable and/or extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be misutilized for a wrong doer. In that view of the matter, petition is dismissed. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp594408