# Km. Sonika v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-01-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66968 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-sonika-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41353
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Education-evaluation of works-on the
ground of lessor marks awarded even
after
better
performens-unless
the
answer
sheet
of
the
candidates
summoned the process of awarding
marks and the allegation can not be
verified-under writ jurisdiction court
can
not
interfere-petitioner
may
institute civil suit.

Held: Para 5

This Court cannot permit revaluation of
copies
by
the
candidate.
Even
otherwise the marks given to the
petitioner
cannot
be
said
to
be
incorrectly given unless copies of all
other candidates appearing alongwith
the petitioner are seen for the purpose
of evaluation of her copy viz a viz
others. This is not possible in writ
jurisdiction. The High Court can also
not call for copies of thousands of
candidates just to satisfy an examinee;
with any concrete basis made out on
the facts of the case. In the opinion of
the Court obtaining less mark in a
subject is not a ground for calling of
copy of that paper.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1984 SC-1543

## Text

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

4. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed by Ram Dayal disputing the
allegation of minority of Khusboo
mentioned in the counter affidavit.

5. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as learned
AGA for the State and perused the
record.

6. It is to be seen that according to
the medical certificate issued by the
C.M.O., Gorakhpur, the age of the
petitioner- Khusboo was about 19 years
on
23.7.2008. The medical report
reveals that all the epiphysis of elbow
joints and knee joints were fused. In
case of wrist, lower ends of ulna and
radius were also fused. It may also be
mentioned that Khusboo was produced
by the police before the C.M.O. for her
medical examination and there is no
reason to doubt its veracity regarding
ascertainment of the age done by the
C.M.O., Gorakhpur, on the basis of
fusions of the epiphysis.

7. As regards the dates of births
mentioned
in
the
School
Leaving
Certificates, the petitioner has filed a
photocopy of the certificate issued by
the Headmaster of the School in which
she had studied and in which her date of
birth was mentioned as 5.2.1989, but in
another certificate issued by the same
school her date of birth has been
mentioned
as
5.2.1995.
Both
the
certificates are self contradictory and
there is contradiction regarding her age
in the school record.

8. We are of the view that when
the documentary evidence of date of
birth of the petitioner Khusboo is self
contradictory, the medical ascertainment
of age done by the C.M.O., Gorakhpur,
on the basis of x-ray report is more
reliable,
and
according
to
that
ascertainment of age, the petitioner is
apparently major and so she cannot be
kept
in
Rajkiya
Paschatyavarti
Dekhrekh Sanrakshan, Varanasi, against
her wishes.

9. This Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition is, therefore, allowed, the order
of the S.D.M., Sadar, Gorakhpur dated
12.10.2008 (Annexure no. 4 to the
petition) is quashed and the petitioner
Khusboo is ordered to be released from
Rajkiya
Paschatyavarti
Dekhrekh
Sanrakshan, Varanasi.

10. Since the petitioner Khusboo
has been produced in this court by CP
1386 Smt. Maya Devi and CP 261 Sri
Anil Kumar Mishra, Constables, Police
Lines, Varanasi, she is permitted to be
released in the court and she is at liberty
to go anywhere she likes. Petition
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66968 of 2008

Kumari Sonika

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajeev Sisodia
Sri Atul Sisodia

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
1 All] Km. Sonika V. State of U.P. and another

245
Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Education-evaluation of works-on the
ground of lessor marks awarded even
after
better
performens-unless
the
answer
sheet
of
the
candidates
summoned the process of awarding
marks and the allegation can not be
verified-under writ jurisdiction court
can
not
interfere-petitioner
may
institute civil suit.

Held: Para 5

This Court cannot permit revaluation of
copies
by
the
candidate.
Even
otherwise the marks given to the
petitioner
cannot
be
said
to
be
incorrectly given unless copies of all
other candidates appearing alongwith
the petitioner are seen for the purpose
of evaluation of her copy viz a viz
others. This is not possible in writ
jurisdiction. The High Court can also
not call for copies of thousands of
candidates just to satisfy an examinee;
with any concrete basis made out on
the facts of the case. In the opinion of
the Court obtaining less mark in a
subject is not a ground for calling of
copy of that paper.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1984 SC-1543

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and the standing counsel.

2. By this petition, the petitioner
seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to produce
his answer sheets of Mathematics Ist
and
Chemistry
IInd
papers
of
Intermediate examination.

3. The purpose of the writ petition
appears to be that the candidate wants to
satisfy herself that answers given by her
have been correctly evaluated or not.

4. The Apex Court in AIR 1984
SC-1543, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education
Vs.
Paritosh
Bhupesh
Kurmarsheth, has held as follows:

"The 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
examinees is involved. The principle of
natural justice cannot be extended
beyond reasonable and rational limits
and cannot be carried 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 make 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."

5. This Court cannot permit
revaluation of copies by the candidate.
Even otherwise the marks given to the
petitioner
cannot
be
said
to
be
incorrectly given unless copies of all
other candidates appearing alongwith
the petitioner are seen for the purpose of
evaluation of her copy viz a viz others.
This is not possible in writ jurisdiction.
The High Court can also not call for
copies of thousands of candidates just to
satisfy an examinee; with any concrete
basis made out on the facts of the case.
In the opinion of the Court obtaining
less mark in a subject is not a ground for
calling of copy of that paper.
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

6. In view of settled legal position,
this Court is not inclined to interfere in
its discretionary powers under Art. 226
of the Constitution.

7. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed with this observation that
petitioner if aggrieved may file a suit
for redressal of his grievance. No order
as to costs.
---------