Petitioner sought writ for issuing fresh marks sheet reflecting minor mark increase post-revaluation under Board Rules. Court dismissed petition, holding courts should not interfere in academic matters and must not replace examiner views, citing prior precedents.
Petitioner's writ petition failed and was dismissed.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 105 of 2016
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Petitioner Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board
18/1/2016
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2) The petitioner has appeared in the Class XII examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education in the year 2015. He obtained 443 marks out of 500 marks in 5 subjects namely Hindi (Special), English (General), Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. After declaration of the result, the petitioner applied for revaluation in the subject of Hindi (Special), English (General) and Mathematics. In all the three subjects, there was some change in the marks obtained, however, the increase was less than 10% in each of the subjects, therefore, under the Rules, the correct mark sheet was not
issued to the petitioner.
(4) In the matter before the Division Bench, the action of the respondent -Board in not issuing the fresh mark sheet, because, the change in marks was less than 10%, was under challenge. Negativing the contention that the action of Board is illegal or ultra vires , this Court has observed thus in para 5 & 6 :
“5. Once the Petitioner applied for re-evaluation under the notification dated 1.4.2013 as it stood, re-evaluation has been done, no allegations have been made against the two re-evaluators, we concur with the contention of the Advocate General that the Petitioner can be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
Kushboo Shrivastava) observing as follows :-
“11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent No.1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] has observed :
The reasons for which similar writ petition has been rejected by the Division Bench applies to this writ petition also.
(5) For the foregoing, there is no substance in the writ petition, it fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge
(Prashant Kumar Mishra)
Shyna
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court should direct the issuance of a fresh mark sheet when the re-evaluation increased marks by less than 10% as per Board rules.
Whether judicial review can substitute the views of examiners regarding academic matters and award of marks.
Whether the petitioner can approbate and reprobate by challenging Board rules after receiving benefits of re-evaluation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rahul Chandrakar (Minor) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and anotherExplained¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gagan Agrawal S/o Santosh Agrawal
Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
