# Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 64
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gujarat-v-sayed-mohd-baquir-el-39744
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
to allege and prove sufficiency of the
cause justifying condonation of delay. He
also contended that in view of the
decision of the Apex court is State of
Gujarat Vs. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El
Edross 1981 SCC 1921 a strong case for
acceptance of this Special Appeal on
merits is no good ground for condonation
of delay.

7. The question before us is as to
whether the Appellants have established
sufficiency of the cause for condonation
of delay occurred in preference of this
Special
Appeal.
Undisputedly
the
appellants are constitutionally subordinate
to the High Court under Article 235 of
Constitution of India. They were parties
to the judgement passed by this Court
which was thus binding on them. The
Appellant No. 1 sought for a guidance on
the administrative side of this Court. The
Court on its administrative side asked
them to file a Special Appeal and that is
how this appeal was filed. These facts
have not been put in dispute by Sri Shukla
before us. True it is that we cannot
express ourselves at this stage in regard to
the merits of the Special Appeal nor we
intend to do so in view of the decision
strongly relied upon by Sri Shukla.
However, in view of the three decisions
cited at the Bar by Sri Agrawal we are of
the view that a sufficient cause has been
successfully made out by the appellants
through the condonation application and
their rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit of
the respondent. Thus we are satisfied of
the sufficiency of cause pleaded and
condone the delay occurred in preference
of this Special Appeal.

8.

The
delay
condonation
application is allowed.

9. Let the Stamp Reporter submit a
further report and thereafter the office will
place
this
Special
Appeal
for
its
admission at the earliest.
Application Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6XEKDVK &KDQG DQG RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 1DUHQGUD .XPDU <DGDYD
6KUL 61 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

3UDFWLFHGXUH DQG 3URFHGXUH ± 3UD\HU IRU
UHFKHFNLQJ
RU
UHYDOXDWLRQ
±
%7&
(QWUDQFH ([DPLQDWLRQ ± 3HWLWLRQHU E\
XQVXFFHVVIXO FDQGLGDWH LQ DEVHQFH RI DQ\
6WDWXWRU\
5XOHV
+LJK
&RXUW
QRW
LQWHUIHUHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 6&& ± $,5 6&
 6XSSO\ 6&& ±
$,5 6&

By the Court

1. The short question that arises for
consideration in this petition is whether
the answer books of the petitioners can be
rechecked or revalued in absence of any
statutory rule.
2All] Subhash Chand and others V. State of U.P. and others

2. For appointment of teachers in
Government Primary Schools, B.T.C.
Entrance Examination was held for the
session 1998-99 by the Principal District
Education and Training Centre, Saidpur,
District Ghazipur. The petitioners being
qualified and eligible for appointment as
teacher applied. They appeared in the
examination but the result was not
declared. This court issued a direction on
06.02.2000 for declaration of results and
the respondents declared results of both
sessions 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the
merit list declared by the respondents, the
petitioners were not selected.

3. This petition has been filled by
the petitioners on the allegations that the
petitioners should have been awarded
90% marks in the B.T.C. entrance
examination 1998-99, but the respondents
intentionally disqualified the petitioners
though they were sure that they would get
sufficient marks and qualify in the
entrance examination. It is prayed that the
answer
book of the petitioners be
summoned and be rechecked and revalued
with model answer books and thereafter
declare the result of the petitioners of
B.T.C. entrance examination 1998-99.

4. Shri Narendera Kumar Yadav the
learned counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently urged that the petitioners are
good students and according to their selfassessment they should have secured
about 90% marks in the B T entrance
examination session 1998-99, but the
respondents intentionally declared the
petitioner to be unsuccessful. He urged
that the answer books of the petitioner be
summoned and rechecked and revalued
with model answer books and the result of
the petitioners be declared. The learned
counsel further urged that this court has
summoned the answer books of the
petitioner on 23.11.2000. Since the
respondents have not produced answer
books, therefore, this petition cannot be
decided till the respondents comply with
the order of this court.

5. On the other hand, Shri S N
Srivastava the learned standing counsel
appearing for respondents has urged that
there is no provision under which
rechecking or revaluation of the answer
book can be done by the respondents and
in absence on any statutory provision the
petitioner are not entitled for any relief.
He further urged that self-assessment
made by the examiners to the petitioner in
the entrance examination were incorrect.
The learned counsel further urged that
even though the answer books have not
been produced by the respondents nor any
counter affidavit has been filed this court
may accept the allegations made in the
writ petition and decide it on merits.

6. The question is whether in
absence of any statutory rule this court
can direct rechecking or revaluation of the
answer books of the petitioners. The
petitioners appeared in B.T.C. entrance
examination 1998-99 and were declared
unsuccessful. Answer books could be
revalued or rechecked if the rules provide
for it. In absence of any statutory rule the
answer books cannot be rechecked or
revalued by the respondents nor such a
relief can be granted by this court. The
petitioners may be good students but that
cannot
entitle
them
to
make
self
assessment and claim that they should
have been awarded 90% marks. If self
assessment is adopted as the basis of
evaluating
answer
books
in
an
examination and this court is asked to
interfere on this ground then the entire
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
system of competitive examination shall
come to a standstill and this court shall
stand converted into an evaluating body
of answer books.

7. The apex court in "Bhushan
Uttam Khare Vs. Dean B Jurisdiction
Medical College, 1992 (2) SCC 220:
(AIR 1992 SC 917) has held as under :

"In deciding the matters relating to
orders
passed
by
authorities
of
educational institutions, the Court should
normally be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matter falling within
the jurisdiction of educational authorities
should normally be left to their decision
and the Court should be interfere with
them only when it thinks it must do so in
the interest of justice."

8. The apex court in "Arun Desai
Vs. High Court of Bombay through Chief
Justice, reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 372,
has held as under:

"Students
who
fails
in
their
examinations are generally prone to make
allegations that the assessment of their
answer script is defective, arbitrary or
partial to explain their faliure and to
console themselves with the thought that
not they but the examiners are to be
blamed for that"

9. The learned counsel for the
petitioner could not point out any
statutory rule which permits rechecking or
revaluation of answer books. Therefore,
in absence of any statutory rule permitting
rechecking or revaluation of the answer
books in BTC entrance examination the
petitioners
have
no
right
to claim
rechecking or revaluation of their answer
books.
10. The other argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the respondents intentionally declared the
petitioner unsuccessful. No material has
been filed alongwith the petition to
establish that the examiners or the
respondents were actuated by any malice
or bias or any other consideration for
which the petitioners were given lesser
marks that what they actually deserved.
Self-assessment has been made by the
petitioner without any basis. The court in
writ
jurisdiction
cannot
direct
for
rechecking or revaluation of the answer
books of the petitioners.

11. The apex court in "Maharastra
State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary
Education
Vs.
Paritosh
Bhupesh Kumarasheth, AIR 1984 SC
1543 has held as below:

"a process of evaluation of answer
papers or of subsequent verification of
marks does not attract the principles of
natural justice since no decision making
process which brings about adverse evil
consequences to the examines is involved.
The principle of natural justice cannot be
called to such absurd lengths as to make it
necessary that candidates who have taken
a public examination should be allowed to
participate in the process of evaluation of
their performances or to verify the
correctness of the evaluation made by the
examiners by themselves conducting an
inspection of the answer books and
determining whether there has been a
proper and fair valuation of the answers
by the examiners.

It was further held in this decision
that it is in public interest that the results
of public examination when published
should have some finality attached to
2All] Smt. Sumitra Devi and others V. District Judge, Chitrakoot and others

them. If inspection and verification in the
presence of the candidates and revaluation
are to be allowed as of right, it may lead
to
gross
and
indefinite
uncertainty,
particularly in regard to the relative
ranking etc. of the candidates, besides
leading to utter confusion on account of
the enormity of the labour and time
involved in the process.

It was further held in the instant case
that the Court should be reluctant to
substitute its own views as to what is
wise, prudent and proper in relation to
academic matters in preference to those
formulated
by
professional
men
possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working
of
educational
institutions
and
the
departments controlling them."

12. The petitioner have neither given
facts nor they have filed any material to
show that the respondents intentionally
declared them unsuccessful. The vague
allegations made in this petition cannot be
accepted.

13. The next argument of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that once this
court summoned the answer books the
petition could not be decided unless the
respondents complied with the order. The
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is devoid of any merit. Interim
order is not binding and the court can
decide the petition finally or merits. The
learned standing counsel has very fairly
urged that the order of this court has not
been complied nor any counter affidavit
has been filed, therefore, the court may
accept the allegations made in the writ
petition to be correct and decide the
petition on merits. I have examined the
records of the petition but I am not able to
persuade myself to accept the claim of the
petitioners.
The
petitioners
cannot
succeed on the basis of self-assessment
made by them now this court can issue a
director for rechecking or revaluation of
the answer books of the petitioners in
absence on any statutory rule.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not
find any merit in this petition.

This writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 6XPLWUD 'HYL DQG RWKHUV«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW -XGJH &KLWUDNRRW DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $. 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 1& 7ULSDWKL

&RGH RI &LYLO 3URFHGXUH ± 2UGHU DUH
DSSOLFDEOH LQ SURFHHGLQJ EHIRUH VPDOO
FDXVHV FRXUW $FW ± KHOG μ1R¶ ± 4XHVWLRQ
RI DEDWHPHQW GRHV QRW DULVH ZKHQ WKH
SDUWLHV DUH DOUHDG\ RQ UHFRUG
+HOG 3DUD
7KH SXUFKDVH RI VKDUH RI %KDLUR 3UDVDG
DQG 5DMHVKZDU 3UDVDG E\ 2QNDU 1DWK
ZDV QRW GLVSXWHG EHIRUH WKH 5HYLVLRQDO
&RXUW DQG ZDV DGPLWWHG LQ WKH REMHFWLRQ
DJDLQVW WKH DERYH DSSOLFDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH
LW ZDV ULJKWO\ KHOG E\ WKH 5HYLVLRQDO