STUTI AGRAWAL Vs. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has claimed writ of certiorari for quashing the result of the revaluation of petitioner as per notification P -4 issued on 26.8.2002 and for directing the respondent to produce the answer book of Botany with correct key answers and to refer it to the third examiner and CBSE quota be also directed to be filled in by the candidates available instead of sending seats back to PMT quota.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that he appeared in Pre Medical Test examination and applied for revaluation in the subject of Botany paper. It is averred that the petitioner had answered 98 questions correctly but the marks have been given only for 89 questions. Petitioner scored 86% marks. Her percentage has been lowered down due to fault of valuation and revaluation. There is provision introduced by the Professional Examination Board for revaluation in PMT. Petitioner applied for revaluation, however, no change has been found. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed alleging that revaluation has been done in mechanical manner, Revaluation done is not proper.

(3.) THE answer -sheet has also been produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Professional Examination Board which is fully tallying with the performance of the petitioner. She has been awarded correct marks on the basis of key answers set by the examiner. Thus, no fault can be found in the initial valuation and revaluation done by the Board. The scope of the revaluation is confined and correctness of key answer cannot be gone into at the time of revaluation; it has to be done only on the basis of tallying with the model key answers, in my opinion, in such examination which is objective type, petitioner cannot be allowed to open pandora box and submission that correctness of key answer ought to have been gone into by the Board, is liable to be rejected. The same may affect entire result prepared. Petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the key answers in the present petition. Thus, the scope cannot be enlarged in the present petition so as to contend that for the fault of wrong setting of model key answers interference be made. True it is that if a key answer is wrong student cannot suffer but that has to be pleaded.