JUDGMENT
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner who has cleared the just concluded HSLC examination, 2007, is aggrieved by the marks awarded to her in the General Mathematics paper.
2. The petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination results of which were declared on 23.05.07. She has obtained 1st Division with Distinction and in General Mathematics she has been awarded 87 marks out of 100 marks. According to her awarding of 87 marks in General Mathematics is much below than her expectation. She made an application on 24.05.07 for re-examination of the answer script. Based on the said application, the respondent Board by its Annexure-5 Results of Re-examination, notified that reexamination of answer script of the petitioner in General Mathematics did not yield any change and accordingly, the remark “no change” was made against her Roll Number.
3. According to the petitioner the answer script of General Mathematics having not been scrutinized properly by the examiner, but for which she would have secured 100 marks out of 100 marks, which would have facilitated occupation of position by her within the first 20 positions, she has been meted out with injustice.
4. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by order dated 03.08.07 requested Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) to obtain instruction as to whether the questions in the General Mathematics paper contained objective questions with modal answers or were of narrative in nature.
5. The matter was again taken up on 22.08.07 on which date learned Standing Council, SEBA produced the answer script and the modal answers. On perusal of the same, this Court directed the respondent Board to determine as to whether the process adopted by the petitioner for solving the question No. 30 was a correct process, although same is apparently not and entirely in tune with the modal answers provided by the respondent authority to the examiner for evaluating the answer script. It was provided that the respondent Board would inform the Court as to why the petitioner has been given only 2 marks against the question No. 23.
6. In terms of the aforesaid order, Mr. Chutia has produced the report furnished by the re-examiner. As per the report, the marks awarded to the petitioner in question No. 30 and 23 are correct.
7. The respondents have annexed the copies of the report in their counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have denied that there was any mistake in evaluating the answers. As per the said affidavit, the answer script of the petitioner pertaining to General Mathematics has been correctly evaluated. For a ready reference the aforesaid reports annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexures A and B are reproduced below:
Q. No. 30 : A person invested one part of Rs. 8000 in 12% stock and the rest in 15% stock of Rs. 120 and made a profit of Rs. 1020. Find the amount invested in each kind of stock.
As per mathematical procedure there are four steps to find out the correctness of the answer of the sum. As let the person invested at 12 % stock is Rs. x. Therefore, the person invested at 15% stock is Rs. (8000-x). Therefore, income on
12*x
Rs.—-
90
2x
= Rs.—-
15
Error done by the candidate
Here the steps above are not shown properly after the third line
Again income on Rs. 120 is Rs. 15
Therefore, income on Rs. (8000-x)
15(8000-x)
= Rs.———
120
(8000-x)
——–
8
Error done by the candidate
Here also all steps are not shown properly after the fifth line.
2x 8000-x
A/Q -- + --------
15 8
16x + 15(8000 -x)
=------------------= 1040
120
= 16x+120000-5x=1040*120
= 16x-15x =124800-120000
= x =4800
The sum is not done according to the procedure. All steps are not shown. It appears that the above steps are not shown by the candidate. So the candidate is not eligible for getting the marks. The examiner examined the answer of the sum properly. No discrepancy is found in reexamination also. Therefore, the process done by the candidate is not correct. Regarding this instructions to the examiner may be consulted.
Sd/-
23.08.07
Re-examiner
Q. No. 23 : Draw the graph of the equation 5x+4y=20 and from the graph find the area of the Triangle formed by the line with the Coordinate axes.
5x=4y=20
= 4y = 20 – 5x
= Y = 20 – 5X
——-
4
X 0 4 8
Y 5 0 -5
Error done by the candidate:
To draw a graph three points should be shown in the table and three points should be plotted in the graph paper. But the candidate shows only two points in the table and two points are plotted in the graph which is not the procedure to draw the graph. As a result of which in plotting of points the graph is not done accurately. Therefore the candidate obtained 2 marks out of 4 in his/her performance. Instruction to the examiner may be consulted.
Sd/-
23.08.07
Re-examiner
8. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit and in paragraph-3 she has stated that in respect of the following questions she put her answer correctly, but she was given lesser marks:
Q. No. Total Marks Marks given
1(b) 1 0
23 4 2
25 4 3
27 4 3
29 5 3
30 5 0
9. I have heard Mr. N.N. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel along with Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned S.C., SEBA. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court (Abhijit Sen v. State of UP and Ors.) and (2007) I SCC 603 (President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar), Mr. Dutta learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the face of it, the marks awarded to the petitioner being not in conformity with the model guidelines, this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should issue appropriate direction for re-examination of the answer script of the petitioner through another examiner.
10. Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA on the other hand referring to the aforesaid two answers submits that since the petitioner has given her answer in the particular questions adopting wrong procedure, the examiner in its sound discretion awarded marks as could be awarded considering the answers furnished by the petitioner.
11. As noticed above, the direction of this Court in its order dated 22.08.07 was only in respect of the questions No. 30 and 23. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the said direction. In the reports it has been amply demonstrated that the marks were correctly awarded to the petitioner. This Court does not have expertise to express any opinion regarding assessment made by the examiners who are the experts in their respective subjects. There may be variation in awarding marks from examiner to examiner. N frill proof methodology can be applied in the matter of examination of papers. In such a situation, the writ court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any mandamus for re-examination of the answer scripts on the basis of the expectation of the petitioner.
12. It is not a case of any irregularity or anomaly agitated in writ petition. What has been agitated is that as per the expectation of the petitioner she was to secure more marks. Examples have been furnished in reference to certain questions and answers. According to the petitioner in question No. 23 as against her expectation of getting 4 (four) marks, she was given only 2 (two) marks. Likewise, in question No. 30, the petitioner has been awarded 0 (zero) marks. If such stand of the petitioner is to be scrutinized, their will be no end to such litigation.
13. In the case of Pravas Ranjan Panda reported in (2004) 13 SCC 383), the Apex Court noticing that there was no provision for reevaluation of the answer scripts of the students which is also the position in the instant case, observed as follows:
6. The High Court though observed that the writ petitioner who has taken the examination is hardly a competent person to assess his own merit and on that basis claim for re-evaluation of papers, but issued the aforesaid direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks. It is an admitted position that the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa do not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books of the students. The question whether in absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer books has been examined by us in Promod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission decided on 06.08.2004. It has been held therein that in absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer-books, no such direction can be issued. It has been further held that in absence of clear rules on the subject, a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-books may throw many problems and in the large public interest such a direction must be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court directing for re-evaluation of the answer-books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks is clearly unsustainable in law and must be set aside.
14. In the case of Promod Kumar Srivastava reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714, the Apex Court noticing that there was no provision for reevaluation of the answer book, observed as follows.:
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for reevaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the large interest, they must be avoided.
15. Mere expectation to obtain better marks and the assessment of a candidate of his/her own answers upon reference to the question papers cannot form the basis of exercising the writ jurisdiction for a direction to the authority to re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidate.
16. It is a common knowledge of all that marks may very from examiner to examiner. The examination in question is not through computerized system. The answer scripts are also not evaluated through computer. In such a situation, if the marks awarded did not conform to the expectation of the candidate, same cannot lead to issuance of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India substituting the view of the examiners who are the experts in their respective subjects.
17. The decisions on which Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance are not at all applicable to the instant case. In the case of Ajit Sen (supra), the ‘key answer’ supplied by the paper setter was found to be wrong. In the case of D. Suvankar (supra), it was found that the error had occurred due to the negligence of the examiner and scrutinizer. There was error in the mark-sheet due to wrong entry made in the computer. Same is not the case in hand. Even in the said case the Apex Court reiterated that the Court’s interference with the decisions of the experts is very limited. As observed by the Apex Court, evaluation of two persons cannot be equal.
18. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ court cannot yield to the expectation of the petitioner as per her own assessment of her answers. So as to issue any mandamus by way of a direction to re-examine the answer scripts in question.
The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.