Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 708 (UTT)

Devansh Chauhan (Minor) v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-05

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. We heard the learned counsel for the parties on the Application (CLMA No. 10412 of 2016) for condonation of delay. 2. We are of the view that the Application for condonation of delay must be allowed. Accordingly, the Application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned. 3. Writ petitioner is the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the appellant studied as a regular student in Class – X in SRCSSVM Inter College Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar and from that college, he appeared in Uttarakhand High School Board Examination-2016 as a regular student. When he received mark-sheet of High School Board Examination, he came to know that he has secured 70 marks out of 100 marks in Hindi. He was expecting that he will get more than 90 marks out of 100 marks in Hindi as in other subjects, he has secured very high marks, but because of the low marks, he did not get the top ten ranking in District Udham Singh Nagar. He has approached this Court seeking mandamus directing the respondents that they shall re-check the answer booklet/ copy of Hindi Paper of the petitioner and then issue fresh corrected High School Board mark-sheet in favour of the petitioner in relation to High School Board Examination, 2016. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. In course of the judgment, the learned Single Judge noted the case of the petitioner that for the objective type questions in Hindi, according to the petitioner, he was liable to be given full marks in some of the answers, which has not been done. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge noted as follows: “2. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner does not appear to be correct as though there were short answers to be given but it cannot be said that they were objective type questions, and therefore, it is not necessary that petitioner was liable to be given full marks for each of the answers. 3. There is no allegation of favoritism and nepotism in the mater or even arbitrariness on the pat of the Invigilator. This is not the case where interference of this Court is required in any manner.” 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. We heard Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. 3. There is no allegation of favoritism and nepotism in the mater or even arbitrariness on the pat of the Invigilator. This is not the case where interference of this Court is required in any manner.” 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. We heard Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3. 6. In answer to our query, Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant would agree that there is no provision entitling him for re-checking the marks. There is only provision for re-counting of the marks. There is no case that there is any mistake committed in counting of the marks. 7. Ordinarily, in academic matters, the Courts are loathe to interfere. As noted by the learned Single Judge, there is no case of favoritism and nepotism or even arbitrariness on the part of the Invigilator. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, no doubt, referred us to the questions posed and also he has got the answer-sheet under the Right to Information Act and he has produced them with reference to the complaint that he should have been given more marks. The foundation for this complaint appears to be the Question Bank published by a private publisher. Court cannot permit the appellant to question the correctness of the answers and direct re-checking, for which admittedly, there is no provision as such, on the strength of the answers, which are provided to the questions by some private publisher. The Court will not ordinarily allow impugning the expertise of the Invigilator, who must be treated as an expert and in the absence of any kind of allegations, which would vitiate the fairness or the competence of the Invigilator, we see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.