Manoj Wadhwa & Anr v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Delhi High Court · 13 Oct 2015 · 2015:DHC:8639
Rajiv Shakdher
WP(C) 9692/2015
2015:DHC:8639
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for revaluation of a compartment exam answer sheet due to non-compliance with the prescribed timeline and lack of sufficient cause for delay.

Full Text
Translation output
WP(C) 9692/2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9692/2015
MANOJ WADHWA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. N.K.Sahoo, Advocate
VERSUS
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manisha Singh and Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha for Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R D E R 13.10.2015
JUDGMENT

1. This is a petition filed seeking a direction from this court for revaluation of the answer sheet of petitioner no.2, with respect to the compartment examination held for the accountancy paper qua XII standard, in respect of the year 2015. 1.[1] Admittedly, since the petitioner had failed in the accountancy paper, she sat for compartmental examination, in July 2015. The result of the compartmental examination, according to petitioner no.2, was declared on 06.08.2015. 1.[2] Petitioner no.2, admittedly, applied for re-verification of the marks on 10.08.2015. The result of the re-verification was disclosed to petitioner no.2, as averred in the writ petition, on 17.08.2015. 1.[3] Petitioner no.2, claims that since she was unwell between 2015:DHC:8639 WP(C) 9692/2015 07.08.2015 and 17.08.2015, she could not apply for revaluation.

2. Ms. Singh, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondents says that, apart from anything else, the time-line fixed for revaluation expired on 29.08.2015. She says that an on-line request for revaluation could have been made between 25.08.2015 till 29.08.2015.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the petition, it is not known as to why after 17.08.2015, petitioner no.2 did not make an attempt to register herself for revaluation.

4. In these circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly, dismissed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J OCTOBER 13, 2015 yg