The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that if there is no legal provision, the court cannot issue an order for re-evaluation of the answer sheet.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rashmi.
The Court said that,
The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with Regulations framed therein do not provide for revaluation of answer books. Good authority settles the proposition that in absence of provisions in statute or statutory regulations reevaluation cannot be directed by the Court.
The Court cannot issue a mandamus in the teeth of statutory provisions. Further authorities in point have always advocated judicial restraint and have cautioned Courts from undertaking any legislative exercise which falls in the domain of the legislature.
The High Court referred the following cases:
(1) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another, reported at (2010) 6 SCC 759, para 24; (2) Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Others, reported at AIR 2004 SC 4116, para 7; (3) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs Partosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth etc. reported at AIR 1984 SC 1543, paras 25,26,27,28,29; (4) Kshitiji Singh Vs Joint Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad reported at 2001 (3) AWC 2191, para 7 (5) Anuj Gupta (minor) Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi thru. its Secretary, reported at 2003 (1) UPLBEC 44, para 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].
The Court noted that,
Similarly, the Division Bench of the Court in Vice Chancellor, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and others Vs Smt Shashikala and another reported at 2009 (2) ESC 1223 (All) DB, also affirmed the aforesaid position of law.
The Court in Anshuman (Minor) Through Grandfather Shyam Bihari Mishra Vs State of UP Thru Prin Secy Secondary (Misc Single No 27302 of 2016) had acknowledged that the Court should not permit revaluation of answer books in absence of a specific provision of law by holding thus:
“Accordingly, once in the rules and regulations there is no provision of re-evaluation, the court should not allow for reevaluation of the answer copies of the student who appeared in the examination.”
But in the facts of Anshuman (supra), the Court had as an interim measure directed the petitioner to deposit ₹ 30,000/- with a further direction for reevaluation of the answerbook. In pursuance of the interim direction the answer books were reevaluated.
“The facts of Anshuman (supra) is thus distinguishable from facts and is not applicable to the instant writ petition. Moreover the Division Bench of this Court in Anshuman (supra) does not in any way support the proposition that the answer books are liable to be reevaluated in the absence of statutory provisions”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.