Kumari Pratiksha vs State of U.P. and Others

The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed.

It appears that the Appellant had taken admission in B. Sc. Part-I in an institution affiliated to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. She was allotted mathematics, physics and computer science as the subject in the examinations conducted by the university. She has failed. She had approached this Court by means of the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal for scrutiny of the answer books as according to her, she was a brilliant student having passed High School and Intermediate Examination in first division. The Court had summoned the answer books of the Appellant and got it scrutinized. Whatever answers were not evaluated, had been got evaluated and the marks obtained by her have been checked and again totalled. However, the net result remained the same.

We have heard Sri Devendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the university and perused the impugned order dated 10th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.

Sri Devendra Kumar submitted that the Appellant is a brilliant student having passed High School and Intermediate Examinations in first division and therefore, it is unbelievable that she faired so badly in the B. Sc. Examinations. He prays that the Court may issue a direction for fresh evaluation of the answer books.

We are not inclined to issue any directions for fresh evaluation of the answer books as there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answer books in the statutes of the university. Only a limited provision of scrutiny has been provided, under which the answers which have not been evaluated, are evaluated and the marks are totalled. This exercise having been done by the university on the application filed by the Appellant for scrutiny with the result having remain unchanged. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the present appeal.

The submission made by learned Counsel for the Appellant that she is a brilliant student having passed High School and Intermediate Examinations in first division would not perform badly in the B. Sc. Examinations has no legs to stand as it is not a universal truth that a person, who has passed High School and Intermediate Examinations in first division, should also pass B. Sc. Examinations in flying colours. The performance in High School and Intermediate Examinations may or may not be repeated in B. Sc. Examinations. The performance has to be evaluated by the examiners and that having been done, the Court cannot sit in appeal on such evaluation.

In view of the forgoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.