Dismissed

Naresh Kumar v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2006WPMS/838/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his poor marks in Mathematics in the 2006 Intermediate Examination. The Court refused to order a re-evaluation directly but directed the Board to institute a scrutiny mechanism for answer books to ensure transparency and accountability in future evaluations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Board to institute scrutiny of answer books within six weeks upon application and formulate rules for transparency.

Naresh Kumar Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT

¶2

NAINITAL

¶3

WRIT PETITOIN No. 838 (M/S) of 2006

¶4

Naresh Kumar (Minor)

¶5

S/o Sri Mahesh Pal,

¶6

Through his father and natural guardian

¶7

Sri Mahesh pal,

¶8

S/o Sri Roshan Lal, R/o Village Pandari,

¶9

Near Gree Wood School,

¶10

Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.........Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Uttaranchal through the Secretary Uttaranchal Education and Examination Board, Ramnagar, District Nainital.

¶13

The Examination Center Incharge, Girls Inter College, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶14

Principal Sarsvati Vidhya Mandir, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.............Respondents

¶15

Dated 5.7.2006

¶16

Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

¶17

Heard Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Sushil Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents no. 1.

¶18

By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-evaluate the answer-sheet of the petitioner of Mathematics first paper.

¶19

Briefly stated, the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination, 2006 as a regular candidate

¶20

with subject of General Hindi, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and English from S.V.M. Inter College, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar with Roll No. 0071778.

¶21

According to the case of the petitioner, he appeared in all the papers of the subject of General Hindi, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and English and he answered all the papers with his full satisfaction.

¶22

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 subject, he 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.

¶23

So far as the scrutiny is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that let the scrutiny be made of the answer book of Mathematics first paper.

¶24

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.

¶25

In Vaibhav Pandey Vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (1998) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1501 , it has been held as under:-

¶26

“2.The past record of the petitioner indicates that he is an 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

¶27

petitioner is that his answer book of Hindi IIIrd paper has not been correctly examined.

¶28

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.”

¶29

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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.”

¶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 parent which 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 rule 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 is 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 the 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

5.7.2006 (Rajesh Tandon, J.)

Naresh Kumar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar v. State and Ors.

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

Km. Ritu Goshwami Vs Ua Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parishad

Jagmindra Singh Vs Civil Judge J/Dand Others

Perma Lal Nanela Vs Commissioner Saharanpur Division and Others

Ganga Parashad Vs State and Ors.

Bachi Ram Vs Addl. Dist. Education Officer and Ors.

Km Himani Pande Vs State and Anr.