IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 25^th OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No.18656 of 2024 ADARSH PANDEY Versus THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Appearance:

Shri Aniruddha Kumar Mishra – Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Aseem George – Dy. Government Advocate for respondent/State.

O R D E R This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

(i). It is therefore, prayed from this Hon’ble court that a writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents be directed to revalued/re-check answer-sheet of petitioner’s subject in question and further issued correct Mark-sheet accordingly, in the interest of justice.

(ii). In alternative, directed to revalue of his answer-sheet by another valuer who available from nearest Govt. school through appoint for particular subject in question, in the interest of justice.

(iii). Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the litigation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has filed this petition for re-checking, therefore, it would not amount to revaluation, but fairly conceded that there is no provision for revaluation of answer-sheets. By referring to some of the answers given by the petitioner with the model answer-sheets, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the answer-sheets of the petitioner were not properly checked.

3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. Undisputedly, there is no provision for revaluation. It is well established principle of law that in absence of any provision for revaluation, the Court cannot direct for revaluation even by appointing the Court appointed experts.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 52 has held as under:-

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

6. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Tripura Through The Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. by order dated 6/2/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.1264/2019 has held as under:-

“18. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdic