AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri J.S. Tomar, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Caveator respondent No.3.
The challenge is to the orders passed by the trial court dated 19.9.2008 and the order of the learned District Judge dated 15.5.2009 in Revision whereby the direction of the trial court to produce the answerbooks has been maintained.
The plaintiffrespondent No.3 filed a Suit. Her allegation was that she has faired well in the High School Examination of 2007 and was expecting more than 70% marks but she was awarded far lesser marks than her expectation, as such, the Suit should be decreed and appropriate relief should be granted. The relief claimed was to grant proportionate marks to the petitioner and, accordingly, correct her result.
During the pendency of the Suit, an application was moved for summoning the answerbooks and the said application No.42C was allowed by the trial Court directing Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, who is the petitioner before this Court, to produce the answerbooks. The said order has been maintained in revision. Hence this petition by the Board.
Learned Standing Counsel contends that the trial court and the revisional court have both completely over looked Section 22 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which is as follows:
"22. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts. No order or decision made by the Board or any of its Committees in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court."
It is contended that the results of the respondent plaintiff has been declared in accordance with the powers conferred on the Board under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and, as such, such orders declaring the result of the plaintiffrespondent could not be subjected to scrutiny before the civil court.
Apart from this, there is a specific procedure provided for scrutiny under the Act itself and it was open to the plaintiffrespondent to have applied for the same and sought the redressal of her grievances which has admittedly not been done.
Having perused the records and having considered the aforesaid submissions, it is evident that the entire exercise undertaken by the plaintiffrespondent was misdirected and the application for summoning the answerbooks was also misplaced. The trial court and the revisional court, therefore, erred in proceeding to summon the answerbooks, as such, the orders are unsustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 19.9.2008 and 15.5.2009 are quashed.