IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23794 of 2003(G)
1. MONUSHA. M., REPRESENTD BY FATHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT. EXAMINATIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :13/03/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.23794 OF 2003
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s daughter, Monusha.M., has appeared for the
SSLC Examination conducted during March, 2003. She got 573
marks in the said examination. According to the petitioner, some
fatal mistakes were crept in the valuation of the answer papers and
he believes that proper valuation has not been conducted in the
case of his daughter and some of the answer papers were not
valued.
2. Monusha submitted an application for revaluation
with requisite fee of R.3,600/- for nine papers out of the 12 papers.
She got full marks for the other three papers. Ext.P3 is the
application for revaluation dated 17/5/2003. Revaluation was
conducted by the respondents and after revaluation, the marks
secured were increased from 573 to 577 and consequently the
position of rank was also changed from 15 to 12. Ext.P7 is the
-2-
W.P.(C).No.23794/2003
revised mark-list. Ext.P8 is the letter issued from the office of
the 2nd respondent stating the details of the revaluation. Ext.P8
shows that there was no change in the marks obtained for
English, Geography, Physics, Mathematics II and one mark each
has been awarded for Malayalam I, Malayalam II, Hindi, History
and Civics. It is submitted by the petitioner that nothing is stated
in Ext.P8 about the Biology paper and that on enquiry he was
informed that the revaluation could not be conducted for the
Biology paper, since the same was missing. Petitioner’s
apprehension is that the alleged missing of Biology paper and no
change in the marks obtained for English, Geography, Physics
and Mathematics II are an attempt on the part of the respondents
in collusion with the parents of rank holders to prevent the
petitioner’s daughter from getting eligible marks, since the
change in marks will cause considerable change in the position of
the rank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner prays for a
direction to the respondents to revalue the Biology paper or in
-3-
W.P.(C).No.23794/2003
the alternative call for the answer papers of the petitioner’s
daughter and get it valued through a panel of experts and also for
a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 application.
3. Pending the writ petition the petitioner filed
I.A.No.11727/2003 for accepting Ext.P9 document produced
along with the IA stating that the document is issued pursuant to
Ext.P5 application. Ext.P9 is a copy of the answer paper of the
History and Civics subject. It is submitted that there are lot of
over writing and corrections in the tabulation column which
were not counter-signed by the valuer. It is also pointed out that
over writing is in a different hand writing and with a different ink
and it is clear that those were not done by the valuer. It is
apprehended by the petitioner that had it been done by the Chief
Examiner definitely it will bear his signature and seal and for
question Nos.25 and 27 initially 2 marks have been awarded and
subsequently that was struck down and in a different handwriting
one mark each is seen awarded. According to the petitioner, a
-4-
W.P.(C).No.23794/2003
perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that a lot of foul play had been
committed in the valuation.
4. The lst respondent filed a counter affidavit stating
that revaluation was done and the same was communicated to the
petitioner, as a result of the revaluation the marks of the five
subjects including Biology were increased and hence marks were
awarded to the candidate and the revised marks were entered in
the SSLC book. According to the lst respondent, there is no
variation for the other four subjects, which were also revalued as
requested by the petitioner and photocopy of the Biology paper
was also forwarded to the petitioner. Copy of the revalued
answer scripts, copy of the SSLC mark list and individual mark
list are marked as Ext.R1A, B & C. It is specifically stated in
the counter affidavit that the Biology paper was revalued and the
result was communicated to the petitioner on 1/9/2003. It is also
averred in page 3 of the counter affidavit that if this Court
desires so, the lst respondent will issue photocopy of the Biology
-5-
W.P.(C).No.23794/2003
paper to the petitioner once again.
5. The petitioner produced Ext.P9 answer paper of
History and Civics subjects for perusal of this Court. The
petitioner suspected that foul play had been committed in the
valuation. I also feel that the submission of the petitioner in
this regard has some force and therefore requires re
consideration. There is unhealthy competition between the
parents of the rank holders and in the light of the contentions the
petitioner’s grievance shall be considered.
6. In the light of the grievances set out in the writ
petition supported by documents, which prima facie indicate that
some foul play had been done, which caused irreparable mental
agony and depression to the petitioner, and after considering
Ext.P9 answer paper of History and Civics subject, I am of the
view that the answer papers of the petitioner in all the 9 subjects
shall be re-valued through a different panel of experts.
Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to revalue
-6-
W.P.(C).No.23794/2003
the answer papers of the petitioner in all the 9 subjects by
deputing a panel of experts other than the experts, who valued
the papers. The revaluation shall be done within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and
the result of the same shall be communicated to the petitioner
within a period of three weeks thereafter, as per rules.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.