Vinay vs Directorate Of Education & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2531 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Writ Petition (Civil) No.9782/2009

%                       Date of Decision: 08.07.2009

Vinay                                                  .... Petitioner
                       Through Ms.Kiran Sharma, Advocate.

                                 Versus

Directorate of Education & Anr.                        .... Respondents
                      Through Ms.Aruna Tikku, Addl.Standing
                                Counsel for the respondent.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                 NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in             NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

Issue notice to the respondents. Ms.Aruna Tikku accepts notice

and produces the original answer scripts of the petitioner for the

subjects Hindi, English and Mathematics.

The learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no

rule for reevaluation of the answer sheets, however, a candidate can

seek scrutiny which contemplates re-totaling of marks and ascertaining

that all the answers have been evaluated. The learned counsel also

contends that scrutiny was done and there is no change in the result of

the petitioner. He has secured 19 marks out of 100 in Hindi, 20 marks

out of 100 in English and 13 marks out of 60 in Mathematics.

The learned counsel for the respondent also states that the

petitioner never applied for scrutiny/rechecking and a legal notice was

given and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the respondent states that the passing

marks are 25% in individual subjects and 33% marks in aggregate and

the petitioner has failed. One of the answer sheet was also shown to the

father of the petitioner who admitted that the answer sheets are of the

petitioner. Perusal of the answer scripts of the petitioner reveals that

there is no mistake in totaling and all the answers of the petitioner have

been evaluated. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the facts

and circumstances.

The writ petition is misconceived and, therefore, it is dismissed.

July 08, 2009                                           ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'