PRANSHU INDURKHYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (a minor represented by his father) is a student who passed the VIII standard Board Examination held in the year 2004. The appellant passed the said examination and obtained 80 marks in Hindi, 77 marks in English, 66 marks in Sanskrit, 75 marks in Mathematics, 84 marks in Social Science and 75 marks in Science (out of 100 marks each). According to the petitioner, the marks awarded to him -are far below of his expectation , He claims that he had done extremely well in ttte examination and was expecting not less than 90% in all these papers. He contends that the lesser marks have denied him the benefit pf securing rank and scholarship. He, therefore, approached the District Education Officer, Jabalpur for revaluation of the papers. He received a reply that rules do, not provide for revaluation and therefore revaluation was not permitted. The appellant sought retotalling. The appellant was informed that on retotalling, there was no change in the result.

(2.) Therefore, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2451/2004 for revaluation of his answer scripts. The Learned single Judge following the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v,. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth (AIR 1984 SC 1543) and Neha Indurkhya v. M. P. Board of Secondary Education Bhopal, (2003) 3 MPLJ 368 dismissed the petition by order dated 28-7-2004. He assigned two reasons for rejecting the petition :

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant contends that the authority conducting the 8th standard Examination should provide for revaluation. It is contended that as 8th standard examination is only a Division level examination and not a State level examination, (as in the case of 12 th standard), there should be no bar for revaluation. It is stated that some Universities and Authorities have provided for revaluation and therefore the Authority conducting 8th standard Examination should also provide for revaluation. Alternatively it is contended that even though there is no provision for revaluation, the High Court can, in appropriate cases direct the production of the answer scripts and have them assessed independently in the interest of justice and fair play. He points out that in several cases, this Court had called for the answer scripts and examined them. He therefore contends that the Learned single Judge was not justified in rejecting the writ petition without calling for the answer scripts to satisfy himself that there was no error in evaluation. He submits that if the answer scripts are called for, he would be able to demonstrate that he was entitled to at least 90% marks in all the papers,