Dismissed¶35

Rohit Kumar Pandey v. Board Of Secondary Education

Revaluation – Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2024WPC/298/2015

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: revaluation; fresh mark-sheet; 10% threshold; substantial change; clause 7; Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education; Class 12; arbitrariness; unreasonableness; policy decision; uniform rule; Srinkhala Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC 889/2011); Ku. Meenal Patel (WPC 1769/2013); Harsha Pandey; Rohit Kumar Pandey; WPC 2433/2014; WPC 298/2015; common order; writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The fixation of 10% marks for issuance of a fresh mark-sheet after revaluation is a policy decision of the C.G. Board of Secondary Education; a change in marks is permissible only where there is a substantial change upon revaluation, and the decision does not suffer from arbitrariness or unreasonableness. ¶32

Rohit Kumar Pandey Vs Board Of Secondary Education — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

2024:CGHC:42770

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2433 of 2014

¶6

1 - Harsha Pandey D/o Shri Yogesh Pandey, Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sivrinarayan P.Sl. Sivrinarayan Tah. Navgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G.

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Board of Secondary Education Raipur S/o Through Secretary Board Of Secondary Education Pension Bada, Raipur , Tah And Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

WPC No. 298 of 2015

¶12

1 - Rohit Kumar Pandey So Shri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Aged About 19 Years R/o Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, P.S. And Tah Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea C.G.

¶13

---- Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - Board of Secondary Education S/o Raipur Through Secretary, Board Of Secondary Education, Pension Bada, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Respondent

¶17

For Petitioners : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate.

¶18

NARESHKUMARKAMDE Digitallysigned byNARESHKUMARKAMDE

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

04/11/2024

¶22

In both the writ petitions the instructions issued by the

¶23

¶24

Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education about the revaluation is under challenged, hence both the writ petitions are disposed off by a common order.

¶25

In W.P.(C) No. 2433/2014 the petitioner Harsha Pandey, who has passed Class 12 examination and obtained 79.6% marks under the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Examination, she had moved an application for revaluation of English (General) subject answer paper. In W.P.(C) No. 298/2015 the petitioner Rohit Kumar Pandey, who has passed Class 12 examination and obtained 80% marks and he had applied for revaluation in the subject of Mathematics. In the revaluation, the mark of the petitioners increased 75 to 82 and 75 to 82 respectively, which is less than 10% of the total marks. The petitioners herein questioning clause 7 of the instructions issued by the C.G. Board of Secondary Education annexed as Annexure-P/1, which prescribed a provision that in case the mark of the candidate increased to 10% or above after the revaluation, then only fresh mark-sheet will be issued to such candidates. The petitioners are questioning the instruction clause 7 stating that the fixation of percentage in revaluation for issuance of new mark-sheet is contrary to law.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the fixation of percentage in revaluation for issuance of new marksheet is not proper, because though the marks of petitioners increased in revaluation but because of the fixation of 10% the petitioners deprived from getting the mark-sheet.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that similar issues have been decided in WPC No. 889/2011 ‘Srinkhala Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another’ by the Division Bench of this Court and which was followed in WPC No. 1769/2013 ‘Ku. Meenal Patel (minor) vs. The State of C.G. and others’. He submits that the fixation of percentage for issuance of fresh mark-sheet after revaluation is just and proper and the same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in WPC No. 889/2011 and WPC No. 1769/2013.

¶30

The Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 18 of WPC No. 889/2011, which reads as under :-

¶31

“18. Ordinance makers, who are experts in the field of education, in their wisdom, have provided that difference of marks, at least to the extent of 10% of the total marks, would be regarded as substantial change. Such prescription, in our opinion, only adds objectivity to the exercise of revaluation.”

¶32

In view of the aforesaid observation of Division Bench of this Court the fixation of 10% marks for issuance of fresh mark-sheet after revaluation is a policy decision of the C.G. Board of Secondary Education and the object behind the said decision is that the change in the marks would be permissible only when there is substantial change upon exercise of revaluation. Hence, the decision of the Board fixing 10% marks for issuance of fresh mark-sheet does not suffers from arbitrariness or

¶33

¶34

unreasonableness. The fixation of 10% of total marks is a parameter of substantial change, which in my opinion only provides objectivity to the rule eliminating discrimination or arbitrary exercise in the hands of the authorities and application of uniform rule to all the candidates applying for revaluation.

¶35

Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners questioning the clause 7 in fixation of percentage in marks is without any substance and there is no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶38

Kamde

Rohit Kumar Pandey v. Board Of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Pandey v. Board Of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saiyyad Asgar Ali Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Saiyyad Shabbir Ali Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Motilal Manwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

D. S. Rao Vs Nokhelal

Dilip Upadhayay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Kumar Tandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh