← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/22656/2018dismissed

Jyoti Singh v. The Bihar School Examination Board Through Its Chairman And ORS

2018-11-28Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22656 of 2018 ====================================================== Jyoti Singh D/o- Raman Kumar Singh, Resident of village-Shambhupatti, P.S.-Samastipur (M) Distt & Town-Samastipur, at Present Residing at VillageChaka, Shakti Nagar Naini, P.S.-Naini Distt & Town-Allahabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar School Examination Board through it's Chairman Budha Marg, Patna Bihar.

2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Budha Marg Patna Bihar.

3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Budha Marg Patna Bihar.

4. The Examination Controller, Bihar School Examination Board, Budha Marg, Patna Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar No-1 For the B.S.E.B.

:

Mrs. Binita Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-11-2018 This writ application has been filed seeking a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner of Chemistry paper of Annual Examination, held by the Bihar School Examination Board in 2018.

It is the petitioner's case that had her answer-sheet been duly evaluated, she would not have failed. It appears from the pleadings on record that the petitioner has applied for scrutiny and the outcome of scrutiny has been communicated to her. The Board did not find any change required in the marks allotted to the petitioner, upon scrutiny.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22656 of 2018(2) dt.28-11-2018 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a clear case of improper evaluation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner.

There is no provision, however, for re-evaluation under the Examination Regulation. The petitioner has invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act for obtaining her answer-sheet from the Board.

Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that despite application having been made in August 2018, the answer-sheet has not be made available.

Once the petitioner has invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, he has remedy of appeal under the Act itself. This Court cannot issue a direction, as being sought for on behalf of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ashish/- U