^i ^ s-\0^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rc.G.i W.P. N0. ^^^OF 2004 PETITIONER Dheeraj Agrawal, S/o. Shyam Hari Agrawal, aged about 19 years, R/o. Shyam Nagar, Near V.V.V.School, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1 RESPONDENTS -X.:. ^» ^' A-^^/ ^V.-'N^*V J. ^ ^c^< ^-^y <??;^ '"^s^ -<^/<^ ^ ^. \ ^-^N^' ^ ^ ^ 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Education Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Pension Bada, Raipur [C.G.] Director, Medical Education D.K.S. Bhawan, [C.G.] Raipur PETITION UNDER ARTICLDE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND FURTHER WRITS AND DIRECTIONS. ^^.^^^ -»s:'^*»te;'u'—i XI-HC-22 3TI^F^I R'li^ 3l@?l $f»+iict»^ti^^ •^ T ^-acj »<1|<1Kn^ ?PT, '^twrl^, i^<rtwy s.:^.^^ NINCII ^^^———M*'"ww'w^'w'^"^^ -^^F" ^R^i^^iW ^fe^ 15.09.2004 sh^ets SC&100 Sint Reeina Dubey? counsejl Shri N.K. Agaiwal, Dy. Adv.| Shri H,B, Aganval, for The petittoner has preferr| 226/227 of the Constitution of Biology & Cheraistry answer respondente. Petitioner's petition is fh^ student right fix>m tlie primai^^ he secm^d 72.2% m Class 10th &| & P-2). The petitioner has vide RoU No.4703043 on 04.6.20(t aiiswered almost all fhe questioi-^s reasonably expectiiig faii' aad mid also expectmg that he will course, The petitioner was shocl thc poor inarks awarded to hu2|i awai'ded 130 mai'ks m Physics, m Biology, 168 m General Scienj xaarks each in Biolog}7 & Chem.ist^? Rules witii regard to ihe revaluatic the rcspondcnts, yct seveiul revaluation agaiast system adopl exercise havmg been left to the re^ challenge. Accordiagiy, as per rul^ for fhe petitioner. Oeu, for respondent No. 1 & 3, resp<|udent No,2. xl ttiis writ petitioii uiicier Aiticle tndia. questioning the evaluation of of fhe petitioner done by the ^lAferiE^ *tii*i<^ff'^l fo<3l A^i^ ^'tf^i'^I^IS appe^red ade^uate t the petitioner is a meritorious lool^ he afevays securcd 1st division, 83.3% in Class 12th (Annexure P-1 ia the Pre-Medical Test, 2Q04 4 & 06.04.2004. Thc pctitioncr has iG flie said exasiiio.atiou, he was marking of his aiiswer sheets (et the adm.issiou in fhe M,B.B,S, ced aiid astonished to learii about ui aJl tlie papers, he has becu mai'ks m Chemistiy, 180 mai'ks ce, whercas he was expecthig 240 out of 300 Biarks, It is tnie fh.at |u have not beeii expressly iiiade by |tzidents have apptied for stich |:ed by tlie respondents, the total tion of executive discretiou is wortli ^s, tlie petitioner vide Annexure P-8 l&O r"-1— T XI-HC-22 ^n^i'^r KW^ ^E§^1 sf»^i<=t»^tRa ^S^ ^MIGTt^ ?pr, ^w<o, ic«nwy 3ff^?T tRI^ SA).P^O , 2-6^^ 1 ^S N(N<yll WW3K ' •^^•" ^R^l ^^IW^ b^l applied for re-totalliag aad on totalmg of the Biarks of the peti^o I havc heaid the lcaraed It is an admitted positioDj no provision for revaluation oftl of tlie maiks is penmssible un^ respoudent No.2/Board subi£i|ks cvaluation of answer papers candidate. a svstein known a| Scannmg Method^ has beeu ac| required to answer fhe questior^ given ia the auswer sheet by aiiswer sheet wiU be scaaned b^l traasfers ttie data to tlie compii| which is programmed to scorc tl for fhe wrong ones wiU iii the firj The Optical Mark Reader sheej procedure of evaluatiou of the{ tiigliest accuracy. There is nc| therefore, therc cari be no ixiaaipulations, In tliis case fhe petition^ that how thc said systeni is def^ of wrong evaluation or tliere is tlie autlienticity oftlie evaluatiosts. chajice ^l^faAl^ *13i*4^ff'^ Ei^Ii ^l&^l^ w^^ |re-totaUiiig. no niistake was found io. tfioner. c|3iinsel for fhe parties, fh.at m the Prc»MedicalTest there is lie aiiswer sheets, however rccountisiig ter the Rules. As leamed counsel for fhat in. fhe Pre-Medical Test for |(0ptk;al Mark Reader sheet^ of a I "Computer Topography System by (opted. In this system a candidate is by filling only one circle out of four poiiit pen; ia the first iiistaiice tliat electoronic scanner, then the scaiuier |ter aiid as a fiiial step, flie coinputer be correct aiiswers and deduct mai'ks ^t place, scoi^ aud fhen assign raaks. t:s are used ia order to simplify the aiiswer papers and also to eusure niaiiual application iii this system, of humao. eiTor or aay biased or m |r has not been able to denionstrate ^ctive, whcthcr there are any chaaccs ^riy flaw m fhe system, which malees m aiiy maiiner doubtful. T- XI-HC-22 3n^?r^r Rriich 3?R^T $t»^I<=t»^tE^a ;a. ^ "5'^ ^(WH<Lt, ^Tll^Ko, {^<rtwy ani^r xrsi^ ^(N€fl(^^^•----••-——•—^F^ 20 •tN^r'" In tlie secoud place, as Court in the niatter ofPyamiod I^ ]|ia.s been held by fhe Hou?ble Apex tumay Shrivasta^a V®.Bihay Piablie Service Co22as2aissio2& reported under tlie relevasit niles tiiere is| ask for rc-valuation of his aiiswl to pass fhe order for revaluation Therefore, in. view of the that fherc is no substaace in tlj dismissed aiid accordingly, it i| itself. Consequetitiy, M.W.P. N( 5838/04 also dismissed, |iio provisions wliere a caadidate. can fer book then the Court is not entitie bf ariswer book. ^bove position, I aoi of fhe opinion |is writ petitiDn, saaie is liabfc to be ^ dismissed at the admission stage (|.2326/04 & I.A. Nos.5839/04 &, <s(Trf<vti<£3ii*<IN^'^ E^<3 <d?at^K ^ 3ll^t^f 3^i in AIR SCW 2004, 4541 fhat where Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tft^ ^fo^