Allowed

Km. Meenakshi Dugama v. Secretary Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parish

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2006WPMS/825/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking re-evaluation of her mathematics answer sheets from the 2006 High School Examination after failing despite answering all papers. The Court, relying on precedents emphasizing transparency and accountability in mark evaluation, directed the respondent Board to scrutinize the answer books within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to complete scrutiny of the answer books within six weeks provided the petitioner applies for the same.

Km. Meenakshi Dugama Vs Secretary Uttaranchal… — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.825 (M/S) OF 2006

¶3

Minakshi Dumaga,

¶4

D/o Sri Jagmohan Dumaga,

¶5

Resident of village and post

¶6

Naag Jagai, Via-Bhiri,

¶7

District Rudraprayag, through

¶8

Its natural guardian (father)

Sri Jagmohan Dumaga

……..Petitioner.

Versus

Secretary, Uttaranchal Shiksha and Parisksha Parishad, Ramnagar District- Nainital

¶13

State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun

¶14

…….Respondents.

¶15

Dated: 1.7.2006

¶16

Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

¶17

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Posti, Advocate, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶18

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents

¶19

to re-evaluate the answer-sheet of the petitioner

¶20

Mathematics I & II papers.

¶21

Briefly stated, the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination, 2006 as a regular candidate with subject of Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science and Drawing from Govt. Inter college, Lamgaundi with Roll No. 0080606.

¶22

According to the case of the petitioner, she appeared in all the papers of the subject of Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science and Drawing and she answered all the papers with her full satisfaction.

¶23

However, the result was declared in June 2006 and the petitioner could not succeed in the said examination and on giving the mark-sheet, in mathematics subjects, she has not succeeded. So far as the evaluation is concerned, there is no provision for evaluation for the marks and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶24

So far as the scrutiny is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that let the scrutiny be made of the answer book of mathematics first & second papers.

¶25

Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate, has submitted that let the petitioner apply for scrutiny and the same shall be done by the Secretary Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Pariksha/respondent.

¶26

In Vaibhav Pandey v. Board of High School and

¶27

Intermediate Education (1998) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1501, it has been held as under:

¶28

“2. The past record of the petitioner indicates that he is on exceptionally brilliant student. In High School examination, the petitioner indicates that he is an exceptionally brilliant student. In High School examination, the petitioner has been awarded 19 marks out of 32 in Hindi 3^rd papers. The petitioner has been awarded much higher marks in other subjects. The apprehension of the petitioner is that his answer book of Hindi IIIrd paper has not been correctly examined.

¶29

3. This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that respondent no.2 Apar Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad shall himself check the answer book of the petitioner in Hindi IIIrd paper of High School examination, 1998 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. On the date on which the answer book of the petitioner is being looked or examined by respondent no.2, the petitioner’s guardian may also remain present. If any discrepancy is found in the answer book, it shall be corrected. The roll number which had been allotted to the petitioner is 1064476.

¶30

The aforesaid judgment has also been followed in Trishma Singh vs. U.P. Intermediate Education Board Allahabad, 2001 U.P. Local Bodies Cases 2071. Paragraph-7 of the judgment is important which is quoted below:-

¶31

“Learned counsel, for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Vaibhav Pandey Vs. Board of High School & Intermediate Education (1988) 2 UPLBEC, 1501, in which this Court held as under:

¶32

This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that respondent no.2 Apar Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad shall himself check the answer book of the petitioner in Hindi IIIrd paper of High School Examination,1998 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. On the date on which the answer book of the petitioner is being looked or examined by respondent no.2, the petitioner’s guardian may also remain present. If any discrepancy is found in the answer book, it shall be corrected. The roll number which had been allotted to the petitioner is 1066476.”

¶33

It has further been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case Mobeen Ahmad Ansari vs. State of U.P. and others (1999) 1 UPLBEC 603 as under:

¶34

“It is a matter of great concern that in the recent years there is consideration influx of such writ petitions in this Court has increased. Earlier the Board of High School and Intermediate Education had inspired so much confidence that seldom writ-petition were filed. Filing of writ petition on such a large scale before this Court indicate that there is considerable dissatisfaction among the students and their parentwhich requires introspection by the Board authorities as well. Although this Court seldom interfere in the revaluation of the marks, but with a view to have greater accountability and transparency there is a need for framing some certain rules to rectify the error, mistakes or defection calculation of the marks.”

¶35

Thus, the respondent No.1 is directed to get the scrutiny of the answer books in accordance with the aforesaid judgments of the Allahabad High Court, where it has been held that there should be transparency of the marks and the petitioner may not be deprived from his legitimate claim.

¶36

Respondent No. 1 is directed to complete scrutiny of the answer books within a period of six weeks provided the petitioner applies for the same.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38

(Rajesh Tandon, J.)

¶39

1.7.2006

Km. Meenakshi Dugama v. Secretary Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Meenakshi Dugama v. Secretary Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Kumar Vs Regional Officer Central Board

Amit Dabral Vs Uttaranchal Shiksha Parishad and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Arya Vs Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parishad

Kauloo @ Kawalu Vs First Addl District Judge Usnagar and Ors.

Anoop Tuteja Vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs Court of First Civil Judge J.D