RAM BHAROSE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs: "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 for producing the question booklet and original answer sheet No.523202 of the petitioner (Rool No.100837679) before this Hon'ble Court so that truth may come before this Hon'ble Court so that justice may be done. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to appoint the examiner as a fresh for re-valuation of the original answer sheet No.523202 of the petitioner (Rool No.100837679) so that justice may be done. (c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (c) and award cost of this petition to the petitioner." Pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2004, the petitioner had applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of Lecturer in History. Petitioner appeared in written test and thereafter interview letter was issued to him; he participated in interview. Petitioner submits that his name has not been shown in the select list, although he had done well in the examination as well as in the interview, as such in this background, petitioner submits that reliefs claimed are liable to be extended to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurodh Mishra, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the written test 125 questions were put up; each and every question was solved by the petitioner, and as per knowledge of the petitioner, all questions were correctly solved, but since result did not come as was expected, as such revaluation is essential. Countering the said submission, Sri A. K. Yadav, Advocate, appearing for the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, has contended that there is no provision of revaluation and the writ petition is based on mere speculation. He further submits that the answer sheets have been properly evaluated and marks properly awarded, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. After respective arguCourt No.18 Ram Bharose Versus State of U.P. and others Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs: "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 for producing the question booklet and original answer sheet No.523202 of the petitioner (Rool No.100837679) before this Hon'ble Court so that truth may come before this Hon'ble Court so that justice may be done. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to appoint the examiner as a fresh for re-valuation of the original answer sheet No.523202 of the petitioner (Rool No.100837679) so that justice may be done. (c) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (c) and award cost of this petition to the petitioner." Pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2004, the petitioner had applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of Lecturer in History. Petitioner appeared in written test and thereafter interview letter was issued to him; he participated in interview. Petitioner submits that his name has not been shown in the select list, although he had done well in the examination as well as in the interview, as such in this background, petitioner submits that reliefs claimed are liable to be extended to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurodh Mishra, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the written test 125 questions were put up; each and every question was solved by the petitioner, and as per knowledge of the petitioner, all questions were correctly solved, but since result did not come as was expected, as such revaluation is essential. Countering the said submission, Sri A. K. Yadav, Advocate, appearing for the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, has contended that there is no provision of revaluation and the writ petition is based on mere speculation. He further submits that the answer sheets have been properly evaluated and marks properly awarded, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges in the present case, is that the petitioner undertook written examination and participated in interview, but in the final select list, which has been published, therein petitioner's name has not been shown. In this background, in the hope, that petitioner's answer sheet has not been properly evaluated; the petitioner has rushed to this Court. The ground on which revaluation has been asked for is totally vague and evasive with no material to support or substantiate the same, and in this background, relief which has been claimed for cannot be accorded. There is one more aspect of the matter; in the examination, which is conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, there is no provision of revaluation provided for. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das, 2007 AIR (SC) 3098, has clarified the legal position qua said aspect of the matter, and has taken the view that once there is no provision of revaluation, then the courts are not at all authorised to issue any direction for revaluation of the answer sheets, as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.