W HIGH COURT O}? CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITEON (C) No. 6089 of2008 Ku. Mse-na Rathiya D/o Shli Mukund Singh, Aged about 32 years, RIO Kaser Para, Sakii, Ward No. 2, District Janjgir-Champa (06.) VERSUS . Staterof Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Pubiic hls‘nuctions: D.K.S. Bhawan; Raipur (CG) . The Direcior Public Instruction, Directorate Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS .The Secretaxy, Shoxthand and Typing Examinatinn Councii (Public Instmction Directorate) Chhattisgarh Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTECLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'HON O INDIA SB: Hmi’ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhuiri. J. Shri Fradeep Singh, Advocat for the petitioner. State/respondents. ORDER g0RAL) (Passed 011 29 ‘day of July, 2009) Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemmeni Advocate for the . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction, inter aiia, that the result of the Hindi Typing Examination conducted by the respondent No. 3- Councii, may be deciored on the basis of marks awarded by first valuer, and further, compensate the petitioner for careless and malatide action of the respondents. . Shri Praiieep Singh, submits that the petitioner obtained 50 out of SO in first paper and 25 out of 25 in second paper: by one vaiuer. He iinther submits that the Without any application made. by the petitioner, another vaiuer has checked the answer sheets of the petitioner and on noticing two mistakes of commas, has awarded 48 out of 50 in first paper, and for seven mistakes in second paper, has awarded 5 out of 25 in second paper. Thus: the petitioner has been deciared unsuccessful. UJ . On query, asto how th vaiuation 1's done and marks are determined in the Typing Test, Shli Singh submiis ma the aner sheets are evaluated y the first valuer, thereafter, evaiued/rechecked the second person. 4. Be that as i$ may, after rechecng, if the mistakes have been noticed, ihe petitioner camiot make a prayer that he 1's entitled to marks awarded by the mt vaiuer. This is for the experts to decide. Second checking means removal of mistakes committed by the first valuer. it is a case where mistakes which ere not noticed by the first valuei‘, has been noticed by “me second vaiuer, and ccordingly. marks were awarded and the a petitoner was declared as failed. i . warding of marks, revaluation of answer sheets is not within the jurisdiction ofthe High Court. it is the job ofthe experts in that field. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, nointerferenee is warranted and as such, this petition. being devoid ofmerits, is dismissed. .. W r . Sdl- ‘ ‘ . Satish K. Agmhot" Judge e t sw b r by kj f w A .