In a writ petition challenging the re-assessment of marks for a CET examination, the court held that the Expert Committee's decision and marking was final. No further interference was warranted under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no order of the court is passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp3609.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3609 OF 2012
Ku. Shehankita d/o Sudhakar Motipavale,
R/o-Deoghar Niwas, Near Vishwashntidham,
Chakur, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2) Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune, Through its Commissioner,
3) The Grievance Redressal Committee,
Through its Member Secretary,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Pune.
...RESPONDENTS.
wp3609.12
2
...
Shri. A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D.
Gunale Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondent
No.1.
Shri. A.R. Nikam Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATE : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012.
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2.The Petitioner secured 140 marks in CET
Examination conducted in the year 2010, for the
post of Shikshan Sevak. The Petitioner filed
representation before the Respondent No.3
Committee, as according to the Petitioner, the
answers were not properly checked. The Expert
Committee was constituted by the State, as in
wp3609.12
3
hundreds of cases such mistakes were pointed out
and complaints were filed. In the re-assessment of
the answers by the Expert Committee, the
Petitioner secured 138 marks.
3.In this Petition, the Petitioner has
again questioned the assessment of the
Petitioner's performance.
4.The learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that as some
questions were wrongly framed, as per the
decisions taken and policy adopted, certain marks
were allotted to all such aggrieved candidates.
The Petitioner too is beneficiary of such decision
taken by the Authorities in this regard.
5.In the facts of the case, we find that
there has to be finality to the examination
assessment procedure. No further interference is
warranted, as the Expert Committee appointed by
wp3609.12
4
the State, has re-examined and re-assessed the
Petitioner's answers and thereafter reached a
conclusion. In exercise of extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and
227, we are not inclined to interfere. The Writ
Petition is dismissed.
[A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/OCT12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the final assessment of a candidate by an Expert Committee appointed for re-evaluation of examination answers.
Whether the principle of finality in examination assessment precludes writ jurisdiction in favor of a candidate dissatisfied with reduced marks after re-assessment.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ku. Shehankita d/o Sudhakar Motipavale
The State of Maharashtra
Maharashtra State Examination Council
The Grievance Redressal Committee
NARESH H. PATIL
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court