Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Kumar (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22458 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar (Minor)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to reexamine the petitioner's answer books of General Hindi and English subject of Intermediate Examination 2022 of Roll no. 2227214743.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to produce the answer books of General Intermediate Hindi and English Examination-2022 of Roll of No.2227214743."
3. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he has passed the High School Examination in the year 2020 with more than 60% marks from the U.P. Madhyamik Education Board with Roll No.3079780 and the result was published on 27.06.2020. It is stated that the petitioner is very good in Hindi and English and he has obtained above 70% marks in the High School Examination. However, it is stated that in the Intermediate Examination (Class XII), the marks shown, as obtained by him in General Hindi and English, are 45 and 33 respectively. It is contended that there is patent error in the examination result and, therefore, a direction may be given to re-examine the petitioner's answer-sheet after production of the same.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that there is no provision under the relevant Rules of the Intermediate Examination that permit re-examination of the answer-sheet for the Intermediate Examination-2022. It has also been contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.1, the petitioner may move an application before the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 20052 to obtain the copy of the answer-sheet.
5. In reply to the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show or demonstrate any provision whatsoever, under which the answer-sheet can be re-evaluated under the relevant Rules relating to Intermediate Examination-2022. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.3.
6. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the result declared by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board pursuant to the recruitment exercise for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. The issue before the Supreme Court was with regard to the consideration of the interference by the High court in deciding on the correctness of the key answers. The facts of that case are different and are of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As a matter of fact, it is observed in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. In this writ petition, however, the averments with regard to the alleged discordant marks are subjective in nature and merely on those allegations, without any rule or regulations being shown, re-evaluation of the answer-sheet cannot be ordered.
7. As correctly pointed out by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court which had held that examinees have a right under the RTI Act to examine their answer-sheets. However, the Supreme Court held that this right is subject to the clarification regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which the information should be furnished.
8. Accordingly, interference in this writ petition is declined, while leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedy under the RTI Act in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra).
9. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 29.08.2022
SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
