.^1 SINOLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF^HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO.^?)I? /2005 PETITK)N]^ ^v d^ K / ^'M •^y'^r "^^. .^l^ ^^'^ ^'^ y Minor Ku. Sarita Nishad, D/o. Shri Samaru Nishad, aged about 17 years, through her guardian Shri Samaru Nishad, Resident of Village and Post- Jarekela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ^l. ^» / 2. State of Chhattisgath, Through : Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Board of Secondary Education Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) o^" WRIT PETITIQN_UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND ORDERS/DIRECTION. DETAILS QF THE PETITION:^ XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r RHIcb W^ ^qraef^cf 3^'<11<<IC1<1, ??Tn'y<l!6, (^<'ll^y ^3ft^2ie/^ ® 3TI^T 5^TT9T ^Tfe<T 14-9-2005 Mr, Ajay Sharma Mr/Yashwant Si^gh respondents/ Sta^ The petitioner h| aggneved by fhe act of fhe r^sp< answer-sheete of the petition^ aad has prayed fhat fhe resp<|> answer-sheets of fhe subjects) of of fhe petitioner is fhat she i^ secured good marks. In fh|e 47.6% marks in Class VIIItIji Examination in. ftie year 200^ the year 2005 she appeared| which she has been awarded Mafheinatics, Thereafter, nuiabers aiid paid a fee of Rs far no result has been comial qie the re-totalbig is coiicemied, necessary fee has been rcspondent No,2 is required) application of the petitioner. totalmg has xiot been decided |)y question of re-evaluatioxi adsjes, chl^Id41-l ^lH<rtT^feT^<(^<-^l< ^^T^TW^T counsel for the petlticmer. gh, GoverDinent Advocate for tih.e LS p^eferred ttds writ petfetioti being spondent No.2 for not evaluatiing fhe r of Hiadi aad Mtathematics subjects »ndentsbe direoted to re-evaluate her Hiadi aad Mathematics. The case an average student and she always year 2003, the petitioner secured Board Examiaation, ioi IXth Class [y she secured 48.6eP/o marks and ia in Xth Class Board Examination ia O mark ia Hmdi dad 23 marks m she appUed for re-totolmg of fhe ,200/- therefor oa 27-6-2005, but so inicated to the petitioner. As far as petitioner has already appMed axd |deposited fherefor, tfaercfore, the to commuiucate fhe result of the So far fhat appUcation for fhe re- fhe respoiMlent No-2, diercfore, no OfhLerwise, re-evali:^tion can be r XI-HC-22 ^^ '*iNK'i<<,ycIi'y4i<o, fcictKiy w. ^1*<C<11 ffi^icb ?T^I^»_., ^^-2/^r 200 w 3TlGt?T^)T R?TN?3TI^T ^TT^^rf^T \-f < ^ 3Tl^T ?^TW ^?T directed osly ia exceptibnal c^ises where &ere is patent inegalily ia ^ . ' evaluatibn ofthe aaswer-shee|te, The writ petition respondesat No.2 to commiia| fhe peUtiioner filed on 27-6-2^ 15 days from today. CertxBed eopy as {>er rules. <=t)i^[<n41<i <4i^<nT^?tel^'<Ri<^i< ^3:ri^T3^T is disposed ofwifh a directiQti to tfae icate fhe result of flie application of 305 for re-totalmg wifhiii a pexiod of Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^fe^)