AVINASH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for revaluation of the answer-sheets of Mathematics subject and English subject.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner had appeared in the Higher Secondary Board Examination, Session 208-19. It is the case of the petitioner that the Examiner has not given proper marks for answers to question nos.5, 13 and 23 of Mathematics subject and question no. 1 (iv) of English subject.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that as there is no provision for revaluation of the answer-sheet, therefore, this Court cannot direct for revaluation. The opinion of experts has to be respected and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute the opinion of experts either by itself or seeking an opinion of a Court appointed expert. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Vs. Abahi Kumar and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328, H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, Neha Indurkhya Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal reported in 2003 (3) MPLJ 368, Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2000 MPHT 95, State of M.P. Vs. Ku. Taruni Gupta and Anr (W.A. No.892/2013), M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Ors Vs. Ku. Vineeta Rupra reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 (DB), Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal reported in 2002 MPHT 237, Neha Indurkhya Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal reported in 2003 (3) MPLJ 368 (DB) and Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2018 SCW 52.