Allowed

Pooja Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2020WRIC/3027/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged marks in intermediate exams due to alleged unfair evaluation. Court noted missing Physics answer sheet despite Board's inability to trace it. Relying on legal precedent regarding answer right, Court ordered Board to award average marks and issue fresh marksheet.

What did the court decide?

Board directed to award average marks in Physics and issue fresh marksheet within six weeks.

Pooja Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3027 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Pooja Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Agarwal,Anshul Kumar Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination conducted by U.P. Board in the year 2019 with Roll No.0069395. Petitioner is not satisfied with the marks awarded to her in three subjects namely Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. She has been shown the answersheet of Mathematics and Chemistry but the Physics answer key is reported to be missing. Petitioner has secured following marks:-

¶6

General Hindi	-	076
English	-	075
Mathematics	-	088
Physics	-	068
Chemistry	-	067

¶7

According to petitioner her answersheet has not been correctly evaluated in Physics paper and that she has otherwise performed exceedingly well.

¶8

The writ petition was entertained and following orders were passed on 28.1.2020:-

¶9

" Grievance is that petitioner has not been supplied the answer-sheet for her perusal in light of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of CBSE and another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, 2011 (8) SCC 497.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions.

¶11

Put up as fresh on 11.2.2020. "

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the Regional Secretary of the Board at Meerut, according to which petitioner's Physics copy could not be traced and consequently, it was not possible to show her the Physics copy.

¶13

On the basis of the materials placed, this Court finds that petitioner has done well in other subjects and has scored only 68 marks in Physics. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.B.S.E. Vs. Aditya Bandopadyaya reported in 2011 (8) SCC 497, it is the right of petitioner to peruse her answersheet. There is also a corresponding responsibility on the Board to maintain the records, so that the sanctity of evaluation itself could be open to scrutiny. In the present case, there is absolutely no justification placed by the Board for not being able to trace out the answersheet in Physics paper.

¶14

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the Board to award average marks to the petitioner in Physics also. This is particularly so as the petitioner has otherwise done well in Mathematics having scored 88 marks. The average marks would be awarded and a fresh marksheet would be issued to petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.2.2020 Anil

Pooja Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilam Yadav Vs Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University and 2 Others

Seth Anandram Jaipuria School Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lokesh Kumar Sant Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shantanu Mittal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Shankar Parvati Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

C/M Quadeer Husain Inter College and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others