JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Sri Ajay Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (herein after referred as ‘Institute’) is a statutory body created by an Act of Parliament viz the Chartered Accountants Act,1949 (hereinafter referred at ‘Act’). Further , as per regulations which were framed by the Institute a person who has to become a Chartered Accountant has to enroll with the Institute and he has to clear compulsory paper in the Intermediate and final examination conducted by the Institute.

3. In the present case , writ petitioner/ Ashutosh Nigam appeared in the examination for the purpose of enrollment of Chartered Accountant conducted by the Institute. He was not successful in the said examination, so he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.5887 (MS) of 2013 (Ashutosh Nigam Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources through Secretary and another) with the following main relief :-

“(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to evaluate/ re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner for the corporate and allied Laws paper.

(b) Issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties produce the answer sheet of the petitioner of the corporate and Allied Laws Paper and to get them evaluated by some independent agency.

(c) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to declare the petitioner as having passed in Corporate and Allied Laws paper for the final group examination, 2013.

(d) Award costs in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties and to pass such further or other orders as may be considered just and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case.”

After exchange of pleadings , the writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2014 which reads as under :-

“Heard Shri Manish Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vibhu Shanker, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

Petitioner seeks reevaluation of the answer sheets of Corporate and Allied Law papers. Through the rejoinder affidavit he has brought on record the relevant documents i.e, (i) answer sheet,(ii) modal question answers prepared by the Institute. He drew the attention of this Court towards answer no. 1 A, 1 D and 4 B as well as answers suggested by the Institute and submitted that after comparing those it is obvious that the petitioner answered the questions in the same very manner. Therefore, he should have been awarded total marks assigned to each and every answer but it has not been done so far,rather in each answer marks have been reduced deliberately. After reading over the comparative chart of the answers, the mistake appears to be apparent.

Shri Vibhu Shanker, learned counsel for the respondent has raised questions on maintainability of the writ petition for the relief as sought therein on the ground that the relief of re-evaluation of answer book is not maintainable unless the rule permits so. He further submits that there is no such rule in the Institute concerned. He also submitted that there are several decisions propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on this point. he pointed out some decisions which are referred to hereunder;

(i) Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda and anohter (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 383,

(ii) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 759,

(iii)Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmasheet (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1543).

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to produce any such rule, framed by the Institute, which permits the re-evaluation. However, after