# Anuj Gupta (Minor) v. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 870
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39740 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-gupta-minor-v-central-board-of-secondary-education-delhi-and-another-40026
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri H.N. Pandey
S.C.

Central Board of Secondary Education ,
Delhi 1995- By laws 61- Revaluation of
marks- can not be made- except the
verification of marks.

Held- Para 11

In view of the provisions of Bye-law 61
and in view of the decision of the learned
Single Judge in Kshitij Singh case, it is
evident that the petitioner cannot be
granted reliefs sought for by him in the
writ petition. The petitioner can only
seek
verification
of
his
marks
as
provided in clause (i) of the Bye-law 61.
Case law discussed:
2001(3) AWC-2191
AIR 1984 SC-1543

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
mentioned in the said order is not
supported by any statutory provision and
cannot
be
said
to
be
relevant
consideration on which the application of
the petitioner should be rejected. In this
view of the matter, the order dated 17th
June, 1999 is liable to be quashed and is
hereby quashed. The prayer of mandamus
prayed for by learned counsel for the
petitioner that licensing authority may be
directed to grant the firearm licence to the
petitioner cannot be granted. However, a
direction is issued to the licensing
authority to consider the petitioner's
application for grant of firearm licence in
accordance with law and not to reject the
same on the ground on which it has been
rejected by the present impugned order.
The petitioner is directed to file an
application alongwith the certified copy
of the order passed by this Court before
the licensing authority within fifteen days
from today, who shall decide the same in
accordance with law within a period three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before the
licensing authority.

9. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 17th June, 1999, Annexure-7
to the writ petition is quashed. Order
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39740 of 2002

Anuj Gupta (Minor)

...Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Delhi and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.D. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N. Pandey
S.C.

Central Board of Secondary Education ,
Delhi 1995- By laws 61- Revaluation of
marks- can not be made- except the
verification of marks.

Held- Para 11

In view of the provisions of Bye-law 61
and in view of the decision of the learned
Single Judge in Kshitij Singh case, it is
evident that the petitioner cannot be
granted reliefs sought for by him in the
writ petition. The petitioner can only
seek
verification
of
his
marks
as
provided in clause (i) of the Bye-law 61.
Case law discussed:
2001(3) AWC-2191
AIR 1984 SC-1543

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, interalia praying for
following reliefs :

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Anuj Gupta (Minor) V. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and another 871
respondents to produce the copy of
subject Code No. 087 Social Science
of the petitioner of supplementary
examination 2002 of Central Board of
Secondary Education Delhi in this
Hon'ble Court.
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to revaluation the subject
Code No. 087 Social Science of the
petitioner
of
supplementary
Examination, 2002 of Central Board
of Secondary Education, Delhi,
(c) Pass an appropriate writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Award cost of writ petition in favour
of the petitioner."

2. From the averments made in the
writ petition, it appears that the petitioner
appeared
in
Secondary
school
examination of 2002 conducted by the
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Delhi. The petitioner was awarded 20
marks out of 100 marks in the subject
Social Science and was awarded grade 'E'.
The result of the petitioner was shown as
compartment (photo stat copy of the mark
sheet of the petitioner has been annexed
as annexure no. 2 to the writ petition). It
further appears that the petitioner was
permitted to appear in the compartmental
examination in the subject Social Science
for the year 2002. The petitioner, it
appears, appeared in the compartmental
examination and was awarded 14 marks
out of 100 marks and was given grade 'E'
(photo stat copy of the mark sheet of the
compartmental
examination
of
the
petitioner in respect of the subject Social
Science has been annexed as annexure no.
4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has
again been permitted to appear in the
compartmental examination.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
this writ petition, interalia, seeking the
reliefs quoted above.

4. I have heard Sri K.D. Tiwari ,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondents.

5. Sri K.D. Tiwari, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was expecting 60% marks in
the compartmental examination of the
subject social science but was awarded 14
marks out of 100 marks. Therefore, he
submits, the answer books of the
petitioner in respect of the compartmental
examination
of
Social
Science
be
summoned by this Court and direction be
given for revaluation of the same.

6. Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel
for the respondents submits that the
examinations are held by the Central
Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in
accordance with the examination Bye
Laws of the Central Board of Secondary
Education, Delhi 1995. Sri Pandey
submits that under the said Bye Laws, a
candidate can apply for verification of his
marks awarded in particular subject, but
no re-valuation of the answer book or
supplementary answer book (s) shall be
done. Sri Pandey further submits that
under Bye Law 61b clause (iv), no
candidate shall claim, or be entitled to,
revaluation of his /her answers or
disclosure or inspection of the answer
books or other documents. Thus, the
contention proceeds, the relief sought by
the petitioner seeking summoning of the
answer books and revaluation thereof
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
cannot be granted. Sri Pandey has placed
reliance of the decision of the learned
single Judge of this Court in Kshitij Singh
Vs. Joint Secretary, Central Board of
Secondary Education, Allahabad and
others, 2001 (3) AWC 2191.

I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties.

7. Bye Law 61 of the Examination
Bye Laws of the Central Board of
Secondary Education, 1995 (in short the
'Examination Bye Laws') are quoted
below:

"Verification of marks obtained by a
Candidate in a subject

(i) A candidate who has appeared at an
examination conducted by the Board
may apply to the concerned Regional
Officer of the Board for verification
of marks in any particular subject.
The verification will be restricted to
checking whether all the answers
have been evaluated and that there has
been no mistakes in the totaling of
marks for each question in that
subject and that the marks have been
transferred correctly on the title page
of the answer book and to the award
list and whether the supplementary
answer books attached with the
answer book mentioned by the
candidate are in tact. No revaluation
of the answer book or supplementary
answer books shall be done.
(ii) Such an application must be made by
the candidate within one month from
the date of the declaration of results.
(iii) All
such
applications
must
be
accompanied by payment of fee as
prescribed by the Board from time to
time.
(iv) No candidate shall claim, or be
entitled to, revaluation of his/her
answers or disclosures or inspection
of
the
answer
books or other
documents.
(v) A candidate shall not be entitled to
refund of fee unless as a result of the
verification his/her mark are changed.

Bye Law 61 (i) a shows that a
candidate who has appeared at an
examination conducted by the Board may
apply to the concerned Regional Officer
of the Board for verification of marks in
any particular subject. The verification
will be restricted to checking whether all
the answers have been evaluated and that
there has been no mistake in the totaling
of marks for each question in that subject
and that the marks have been transferred
correctly on the title page of the answer
book and to the award list and whether the
supplementary answer books attached
with the answer book mentioned by the
candidate are in tact. It is specifically
stated in clause (i) of Bye Law 61 of the
Examination
Bye
Laws
that
no
revaluation of the answer book or
supplementary answer books shall be
done.

8. Again, clause (iv) of Bye Law 61
of the Examination Bye Laws lays down
that no candidate shall claim, or be
entitled to, revaluation of his/her answers
or disclosures or inspection of the answer
books or other documents.

9. In view of these provisions
contained in the Examination Bye Laws
of the Central Board of Secondary
Education, it is evident that a candidate
cannot make any claim for revaluation of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Anuj Gupta (Minor) V. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and another 873
the answer book or supplementary answer
books. Only verification of the marks as
provided under clause (i) of Bye Law 61
can be done if a candidate makes the
requisite application for that purpose.

10. In Kshitij Singh (supra), learned
single Judge of this Court considered the
provision of Bye Law 61 and the decision
of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State
Board
of
Secondary
and
Higher
Secondary Education and another Vs.
Pritosh Bhkupedh Kurmarsheth etc. AIR
1984 SC 1543, Learned Single Judge laid
down as follows (Paragraph No. 7 of the
said AWC):

"Rule
61
further
contains
a
provision that no revaluation of the
answer book or supplementary answer
book shall be done. The examination of
the
Central
Board
of
Secondary
Education is thus conducted under the bye
laws which in detail prescribe the
procedure of examination, evaluation and
all other connected matter. The bye laws
only permit verification of marks and
specifically
contain
a
provision
of
prohibiting revaluation of the answer
book of every student who appears in the
Board Examination. There is uniform
procedure
of
examination
and
its
evaluation conducted by the Board. The
petitioner appears in the examination
conducted by the Board in accordance
with the bye laws and subject to
procedure and rules prescribed therein.
Rule 61 provides only verification of
marks obtained by a candidate in a
subject, hence the petitioner can avail
only that benefit which is provided under
the bye laws. When the bye laws prohibit
the revaluation, the petitioner can not ask
this Court to issue direction to the Board
to act to the contrary to the bye laws. In
the writ petition, there is no challenge to
bye law 61 which itself provides that there
will be no revaluation of the answer
book."

11. In view of the provisions of Bye
law 61 and in view of the decision of the
learned single Judge in Kshitij Singh
case, it is evident that the petitioner
cannot be granted reliefs sought for by
him in the writ petition. The petitioner can
only seek verification of his marks as
provided in clause (i) of the Bye law 61.

12. In the circumstances, this writ
petition is disposed of with the following
directions:

13. In case, the petitioner makes an
application for verification of his marks
awarded in compartmental examination in
the subject Social Science within six
weeks from today, the application of the
petitioner will be entertained without
raising any objection as to limitation, if
any, for filing such application. The
verification of the marks as provided in
clause (i) of Bye law 61 will be done
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of one month from the date of filing of
such application by the petitioner. The
result of verification of marks will be
pasted on the answer book of the
petitioner and will be communicated to
the petitioner by registered post at the
earliest. The answer book of the petitioner
in
respect
of
the
compartmental
examination in the subject Social Science
will be preserved for a minimum period
of six months from the date of dispatch of
communication by registered post to the
petitioner regarding the result of the
verification of marks.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R. TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38940 of 2002

Smt. Aaisha Siddique

...Petitioner
Versus
Senior Terminal Manager, IOC Terminal
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri W.H. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P. Padia

Constitution
of
India-
226-
Tender
submitted beyond 10 minute- Prescribed
Period 12-00 No.- whether the Court can
extend it by 10 minute ? - "No" if 10
minutes extended , why not 10 hours on
ten months- one has to be strict in such
matter.

Held - para 3

In our opinion, time is of the essence in
such
matters,
otherwise
the
legal
position will be totally chaotic. For
example, if in an election on the election
day the voting can take place from 8.00
a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and a voter reaches the
polling station at 4.10 p.m. and states
that he be allowed to cast his vote, in our
opinion he cannot be allowed to do so,
whatsoever may be reason for the delay.
Similarly, this Court cannot extend the
time for submission of the tenders. If we
extend it by 10 minute, then why not for
10 hours or ten days ? Where will the
line be drawn. Hence the only correct
view can be that one has to be strict in
such matters. Since the petitioner did
not reach in time her tender it cannot be
accepted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has prayed that the
respondents be directed to entertain and
consider
the
petitioner's
tender
in
pursuance of the tender notice 29.7.2002.
The last date and time of submitting the
tender in pursuance of the tender notice
dated 29.7.2002 was 21.8.2002 by 12.00
Noon. It has been alleged in paragraph 4
of the writ petition that because of traffic
jam the petitioner's driver could not reach
at the office of the respondents at 12.00
noon but reached there at 12.10 p.m., that
is, he was late by 10 minutes. Although,
in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the counter
affidavit it has been stated that in fact the
petitioner's tender was not given on
21.8.2002 but was given on 22.8.2002,
but even assuming that the allegation of
the petitioner is correct there is no doubt
that the tender was late by 10 minutes.

3. In our opinion, time is of the
essence in such matters, otherwise the
legal position will be totally chaotic. For
example, if in an election on the election
day the voting can take place from 8.00
a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and a voter reaches the
polling station at 4.10 p.m. and states that
he was late by 10 minutes because of a
traffic jam and insists that he be allowed
to cast his vote, in our opinion he cannot
be allowed to do so, whatsoever may be
reason for the delay. Similarly, this Court
cannot extend the time for submission of
the tenders. If we extend it by10 minutes,
then why not for 10 hours or ten days ?
Where will the line be drawn. Hence the
only correct view can be that one has to
be strict in such matters. Since the