Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26530 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jitendra Sengar
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bashisth Narain Pandey,Ravindra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Bashisth Narain Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-University and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. Petitioner is seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheet in the subject of English Literature B.A. IInd paper in Session 2017-18 conducted by Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
3. When confronted, learned counsel for petitioner could not show any provision under which re-examination and re-evaluation of answer-sheet could be done.
4. Apex Court has repeatedly held that no request for revaluation can be accepted unless there is a provision in this regard. In Maharashtra S.B.O.S. And H.S. Education Vs. Paritosh AIR 1984 SC 1543, Court has clearly taken the view that in absence of provision of revaluation, direction to that effect cannot be accorded. Said view has been reiterated again in Pramod Kuamr Srivastava Vs. Chairman B.P.S.C. Patna AIR 2004 SC 4116.
5. Referring to various authorities on the subject, Apex Court in its a very recent judgment in Taniya Malik Vs. The Registrar General of High Court of Delhi AIR 2018 SC 1245 has held the under: "Now we take up the second submission with respect to revaluation of answer-scripts. It is settled proposition of law that in the absence of provision it cannot be ordered. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 759, this Court has considered various decisions and observed:
"24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmar Sheth wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/ reevaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under:
"14. ...It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. … 16. ... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act."
25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 observing as under:
"7. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answerbook. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Dr. Muneeb-Ul- Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State (1984) 4 SCC 24; Board of Secondary Education v. PravasRanjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar (2007) 1 SCC 603;
W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das (2007)8 SCC242; and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (2009) 1 SCC 599.
26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation."
In Mukesh Thakur (supra) it was laid down that in the absence of provision for revaluation it cannot be resorted to In our opinion, for examination in question in the absence of provision for revaluation when the examination was held, it could not be resorted to."
6. In view of above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Siddhant Sahu