Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suman Devi D/O Shiv Janak Bais Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.21224/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 21224 of 2024
SUMAN DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Prasad Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Veer Vikrant Singh - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been
filed seeking following relief(s):-
A. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to get rechecked the Economic
subject answer sheet and proper marks be
awarded by independent checker and fresh
marksheet be issued.
B. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of this case, along
with the cost of this writ petition be also
awarded.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had
appeared in Class 12th examination. In Economics subject, she got only
4 marks out of 80. Petitioner had got her answer-sheet revaluated from a
private examiner who has informed that certain answers of the petitioner
were right but 0 marks have been awarded. Accordingly, it is prayed
that the respondents be directed to re-check the answer-sheet of
Economics subject and proper marks be awarded to the petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. It is an undisputed fact that there is no provision for revaluation.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 52
has held as under:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite
clear and we only propose to highlight a few
significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute,
Rule or Regulation governing an examination
permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right,
then the authority conducting the examination
may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination does not
permit reevaluation 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; (iii) The Court should not at all re-
evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a
candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and
academic matters are best left to academics; (iv)
The Court should presume the correctness of the
key answers and proceed on that assumption;
and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the examination authority rather
than to the candidate."
6. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Tripura
Through The Registrar General Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee &
Ors. by order dated 6/2/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.1264/2019 has
held as under:-
"18. We have noticed the decisions of this
Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has
laid down that there is no legal right to claim or
ask for revaluation in the absence of any
provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is
no provision. In fact, the High Court in the
impugned judgment has also proceeded on the
said basis. The first question which we would
have to answer is whether despite the absence of
any provision, are the courts completely
denuded of power in the exercise of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that
the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on
the existence of a legal right and the
corresponding duty with the answering
respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as
of right, it is clear that the first respondent could
not maintain either writ petition or the review
petition demanding holding of revaluation.
19. The question however arises whether even if
there is no legal right to demand revaluation as
of right could there arise circumstances which
leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave
injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant
in certain circumstances. The case may arise
where even though there is no provision for
revaluation it turns out that despite giving the
correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt
this must be confined to a case where there is no
dispute about the correctness of the answer.
Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should
be resolved in favour of the examining body
rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide
power under Article 226 may continue to be
available even though there is no provision for
revaluation in a situation where a candidate
despite having giving correct answer and about
which there cannot be even slightest manner of
doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong
answer and consequently the candidate is found
disentitled to any marks.
20. Should the second circumstance be
demonstrated to be present before the writ court,
can the writ court become helpless despite the
vast reservoir of power which it possesses? It is
one thing to say that the absence of provision for
revaluation will not enable the candidate to
claim the right of evaluation as a matter of right
and another to say that in no circumstances
whatsoever where there is no provision for
revaluation will the writ court exercise its
undoubted constitutional powers? We reiterate
that the situation can only be rare and
exceptional."
7. Even if the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Sharinath Das Gupta Vs. Board of Secondary
Education reported in 2018 (3) M.P.L.J. 76 is considered, still
petitioner has failed to point out any exceptional circumstances
warranting revaluation of answer-sheet of petitioner by a Court
appointed expert. Merely because the petitioner is of the view that her
answers were correct, is not sufficient for this Court to direct for
revaluation specifically when there is no provision for the same.
8. As no case is made out by the petitioner for revaluation and in
absence of provision for revaluation, no case is made out warranting
interference.
9. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
S.M.
