Dismissed¶24

Hitakshi Sarangi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Aug 2024WP(C)/3810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.3810 of 2023; petitioner Hitakshi Sarangi; direction sought to opposite party No.3 for appointment of expert to revaluate answer papers in Chemistry, Botany and M.I.L. (C); Regulation 117 of Annexure-A/3 allows rechecking and reedition only, no valuation or revaluation; rechecking and readdition already done on petitioner's request; no provision for expert evaluation; prayer not allowed; writ petition stands dismissed; decided 07.08.2024; Justice R.K. Pattanaik; counsel K.C. Sahoo (petitioner), P.K. Rath Senior Advocate (opposite party Nos.2 and 3), N.K. Praharaj AGA (State).

What did the court decide?

Revaluation or evaluation of answer papers as pleaded for by the petitioner is not permissible as per Regulation 117, and therefore such a prayer cannot be permitted. ¶22

Hitakshi Sarangi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3810 of 2023

¶3

Hitakshi Sarangi

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahoo, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite party Mr. N.K. Praharaj, AGA Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

07.08.2024

(This matter is taken up through virtual mode)

¶15

Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 besides Mr. Praharaj, learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to opposite party No.3 to engage and appoint an expert for revaluation his answer papers in Chemistry, Botany and M.I.L. (C) on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

In course of hearing, Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that revaluation of the papers is necessary in the interest of justice. It is further submitted that such readdition/rechecking was carried out not in the immediate presence of the petitioner, hence, therefore, necessary direction is required to be issued only to get the papers revaluated by an expert.

¶18

In reply and response to the above, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 refers to

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

Annexure-A/3 of the counter affidavit to claim that Regulation 117 thereof allows rechecking and reedition and no valuation or revaluation of the answer papers. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate that rechecking and readdition of the papers has been done on the request of the petitioner. Since evaluation of papers is not permitted as per the Regulation, as according to Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, such prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed.

¶21

5. Perused the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.

¶22

Since revaluation or evaluation of answer papers as pleaded for by the petitioner is not permissible as per Regulation 117, the same cannot be permitted. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that since rechecking and readdition has already taken place in respect of the papers of the petitioner, in absence of any such provision in Annexure-A/3 for expert evaluation, such a prayer cannot be allowed and entertained.

¶23