Prashant Kumar Son Of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.14228 of 2012 (2) dt.17-01-2013 2 solved 93% of the questions without any error and, therefore, the marks given to the petitioner in the said examination would require reconsideration, which can be done only by way of reevaluation of his answersheet. Counsels for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have filed their counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner had secured only 692 whereas the cut-off in his category was 780. Reference has also been made to the paragraph no. 10.8 of the prospectus of the examination wherein reevaluation of answersheet has been completely barred. It has also been explained in the counter affidavit that on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioner, he could not have been granted admission in any course rather his position being 1301 in joint merit list, he could have got admission in other course but not in the engineering course. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the first and foremost question would be as to which right of the petitioner has been infringed when the respondents have refused to re-total or reevaluate the answer book of the petitioner. Clause 10.8 of the advertisement in this regard being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^10-8 izFke pj.k ,oa f}rh; pj.k ijh{kkvksa ds mrj i=dksa ds iquewZY;kadu (Re-evaluation)] nqckjk tksM+] (Retotalling) vkfn ds fy, vkosnu ugha fy;s tk; saxs Patna High Court CWJC No.14228 of 2012 (2) dt.17-01-2013 3 vkSj u dksbZ blls lacaf/kr i=kpkj gh Lohdk;Z gksxkA** The petitioner had appeared in the said examination with open eyes as having noticed the aforementioned clause 10.8 of the advertisement and he, therefore, cannot wriggle out of the terms of the advertisement. His own impression that he had solved 93% of the questions without any error may be good for his own satisfaction but, when, such answers are being evaluated by a well defined mechanism fully explained in paragraph no.10 of the counter affidavit, reading as follows:- “10. That it is worth mentioning here that as per para-

10.8 of the prospectus of BCECE-2012 any application regarding evaluation, re-totalling etc. of Answer Sheet is not to be entertained and no correspondence in this regard is to be accepted. The aforesaid provision as incorporated in the prospectus of BCECE-2012 as para 10.8 is based on the following reasons:- (a) Marks obtained by the candidates question wise in each answer sheet are checked, verified and totaled meticulously by the examiners/ scrutinisers. (b) The total marks of scrutinized Answer sheet of each candidate are entered in the computer and the computer date base is thoroughly checked and the error free data base is used for the final tabulation and merit preparation by computer using standard software. (c) According to the guidelines of the Medical Council of India the admissions in MBBS Patna High Court CWJC No.14228 of 2012 (2) dt.17-01-2013 4 Course to be completed within prescribed schedule. Accordingly completion of counseling/seat allotment and admissions become the time bound programme with top priority. In view of the fact that meticulous verifications are carried out in each and every case, the re- evaluation of the Answer sheets becomes unnecessary and only a futile exercise. (d) It is pertinent to point out here that an advertisement no. BCECEB (BCECE)- 2012/18 dated 31.8.2012 was published in local dailies of Bihar, wherein it was informed that based on total marks obtained in PCM (Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics) PCB (Physics, Chemistry & Biology) a joint merit list of PCM & PCB candidates have been made available on the website of the BCECE Board. The candidates who were included in above joint merit list had to fill up their online option for appearing counseling based on joint PCB & PCB position admissions Agriculture Stream Courses. The petitioner having joint merit position Gen- 1301 did not opt for appearing in the abovesaid counseling and remained absent.” nothing would be left for speculation that the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to reevaluate or re-total his answer-sheet contrary to the terms of advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to Patna High Court CWJC No.14228 of 2012 (2) dt.17-01-2013 5 Article 19 of the Constitution of India which in the considered opinion of this Court in no way would be covering the terms and conditions of the examination. If the petitioner wanted any information, that was his statutory right and not a fundamental right as is apparent from the provisions of Right to Information Act. Even under the Right to Information Act, he could not have asked for re-totaling or reevaluation and at best he could have only asked for inspection of those copies. That however is not the scope or subject matter of this writ petition. That being so, application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-