Shraddha Srivastava vs Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and Another

N.K. Mehrotra, J.—This is a writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to re-valuate the answer sheet of subjects namely English, Commerce, Hindi, Social Science pertaining to the Petitioner''s Roll No. 5206904 of CBSE Board and issue fresh marksheet thereof.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, there is no rule available for the re-valuation of the answer book. Only verification of marks is permissible under the rules. In Anuj Gupta Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Another, , it was held that a candidate cannot make any claim for re-valuation of his or her answer book. In Kshitij Singh Vs. Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad and others, , it was held that the rule do not provide for re-valuation of answer books. The rule provides only for verification of marks in bye-laws of C.B.S.E. and hence Petitioner cannot ask writ court to issue direction to Board to act contrary to bye-laws. The Petitioner has no right to claim re-valuation of his two answer books.

Admittedly, the re-valuation or re-examination of the answer books is not permissible under the rules. In Lucknow University v. Sanjay Sharma 1994 (12) LCD 349, it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that this power of re-valuation or re-examination of the answer book is not to be controlled by any outside agency and it is not a substantive right of the Petitioner to get the answer book re-examined.

In Miss Srumoyu Ghosh Vs. The State of W. B. and others, , it was held by the Calcutta High Court that good performance in earlier examinations cannot be a good ground for re-valuation in subsequent examination. Further, the same view was taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, and Vipin Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Board and Another, . All these cases were relied by this Court in Km. Soumya Trivedi v. State of U.P. and ors. in Writ Petition No. 3095 (M/s) of 2003 and it was held that the students who failed in their examinations are generally prone to make allegations that the assessment of their answer scripts is defective. There can be no basis of the allegations that her answer book of subject was not properly examined. Even after re-examination, the Petitioner cannot be satisfied and he or she can come again for re-examination with the allegation that her answer book was not examined according to her expectation. A process of valuation of answer papers or of subsequent valuation of marks do not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about the adverse and evil consequence to an examinee is involved. Moreover, it is in the public interest that the result of public examination when published should have some finality at a particular stage. If re-valuation is allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.