PRIYANSHU AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, and as such the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) The petitioner came up before this Court with a case that the results of the scrutiny were not informed to him and that he had applied for scrutiny in the First Paper of Physics and Second Paper of Chemistry. The contention is that the petitioner had obtained on the average very good marks in all other subjects and there was no reason to award him only 38 marks in the Science paper of the High School Examinations, 2006.

(3.) The petitioner had applied for scrutiny. The contention is that the results of scrutiny were not made known and even otherwise the scrutiny does not appear to have been carried out in accordance with the rules applicable.