Vidya Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1484 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17485 of 2018 ====================================================== Vidya Kumari Daughter of Surendara Prasad Gupta Resident of VillagePahetia, P.S.-Dharahara District-Vaishali. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director Higher Secondary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board. 5.

The Examination Controller, Bihar School Examination Board. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

:

Mr. Vaishav Vikram Singh, Adv.

:

Mr. Priyadorshini, Adv.

:

Mr. Tulika Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Shri Lalit Kishore, AG For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 26-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.09.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 17485 of 2018 titled as Vidya Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

2/4 The impugned judgment/order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17485 of 2018 titled as Vidya Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., is reproduced in toto hereinunder:

"The petitioner is seeking direction to respondent Bihar School Examination Board to supply true copes of the answer-sheets of the petitioner of her Annual Intermediate Examination, held in the year 2018 by the Bihar School Examination Board.

From the pleadings on record, it appears that the petitioner has invoked Right to Information Act for supply of the said answer-sheets in June 2018.

I do not find any reason to entertain the relief, which is being sought in the present writ application, since the petitioner has a remedy under the Right to Information Act which she has already invoked.

Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that, despite making of application in June 2018 under the Right to Information Act, information has not been supplied.

It goes without saying that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under the Right to Information Act in

3/4 case of non-supply of the document, which she can avail.

With the observation that the petitioner shall have liberty to avail her remedy under the Right to Information act, this application stands disposed of."

Learned advocate General invites our attention to Rule-20 of Chapter-V of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964 which reads as under:

"20. Scrutiny. - (a) Candidates, who desire to get their answer book scrutinised may apply for the same within one month of date of publication of the Board's result. The application for scrutiny must be accompanied in such case by a fee of Rs. 5/- (Five) per paper, minimum Rs. 10/- (Ten) and maximum of Rs. 30/- (Thirty) only. No such application will be entertained unless the same forwarded by the Head of Institution from which the candidate appeared with a certificate to the effect that he is convinced that there is strong and sufficient ground for such scrutiny.

(b) Scrutiny will not imply re-examination of the answerbooks of a candidate. It will merely be a check to ensure whether there has been any mistake in totalling the marks assigned to individual question or in carrying them over or any omission to mark a question or part thereof. (c) The result of scrutiny will be communicated to the Head of Institution and the candidate concerned.

(d) The fee paid for scrutiny of answer books shall not be refunded."

The Rules do not provide for supply of answersheet. As such, as per the settled law, there being no provision for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets, the Writ Court rightly did

4/4 not allow the petitioner's prayer. Liberty already stands granted to the petitioner to obtain necessary information under the provisions of Right To Information Act which is the petitioner's prayer.

As such, no interference is warranted. The judgment cannot be said to perverse or illegal in any manner. The appeal stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) veena/rajiv/- U