N.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to produce the original anser books of both the papers of Sanskrit and the 1st Paper of Economics of the Intermediate Examination, 2004 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examinations, U.P. bearing Roll No. 639049 of the petitioner before this Court and for bring examined by some competent examiner at the costs of the petitioner.
(2.) It is admitted case of the parties that there is no rule for re-examination or re-valuation of the answer books in the Rules of the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P. and only verification of marks (scrutiny) is permissible under the Rules. The case of the petitioner is that she has a right to get the answer books re-evaluated on payment of further fees and she has also a right to know that her own answer books have been evaluated and not of anybody else. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a number of cases the High Court has permitted for scrutiny of the answer books and for this purpose he has referred the decisions of this Court in Kumari Sweta Agarwal v. Additional Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. at Allahabad, (1999)3 UPLBEC 1884 and Km. Sumitra Solanki v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. (Board of High School and Intermediate Education), Allahabad, (1999)3 UPLBEC 2143. It will not be out of place to make it clear that there is difference in scrutiny of marks and reexamination of the answer books. Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the decision of this Court in Trishna Singh v. U.P. Intermediate Education Board, Allahabad, (2001)3 UPLBEC 2071 : (2001 All LJ 1912); Saurabha Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2001)1 UPLBEC 31 and Vaibhav Pandey (Minor) v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad), U.P. Allahabad, (1998)2 UPLBEC 1501. A perusal of these judgments makes it clear that no law has been laid down in these three cases and these cases have been decided on the peculiar facts of those cases. A similar matter came before the Calcutta High Court in Mrs. Saumoyu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 Calcutta 1 , 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 and the same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 .;