PRATEEKSHA PARMAR Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent in improperly evaluating the answer sheet of the petitioner in the subject of "Sanskrit (General)". The action of the respondent, whereby the change was made subsequently, is also called in question. It is contended that because of aforesaid action, the petitioner was deprived to participate in selection of PPT (Pre -Polytechnic Test). It is contended that the petitioner appeared in High School Certificate Examination (10+2). In original mark sheet, Annexure P/1, she was given 21 marks in said subject with a remark that she has received 'supplementary'. The petitioner was shocked to see the said result because she was expecting her success in the said subject in flying colours. The petitioner filed the answer sheet, Annexure P/3, to demonstrate that the total marks received by her were not properly calculated.

(2.) SHRI Bidua drew the attention of this Court on Annexure P/4, whereby request of the petitioner for re -totalling was declined by showing the result as "no change". The petitioner left with no option, filed this petition.

(3.) PER contra, Shri J.P. Mishra relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 85/2014 (Abhishek Parmar vs. Board of Secondary Education). He submits that the petitioner has not shown as to what substantive prejudice has been caused to her if she could not appear PPT Examination. It is contended that as per PPT Rules (Clause 2.4.3) (2) (Note -2), the candidate with supplementary can also appear in the said examination. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in WP No. 3360/2013 (Samiksha Gupta vs. Board of Secondary Education, MP).