IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10/01/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.NO.19090 OF 2004
G.Kanchana ..Petitioner
-Vs-
The Director of Government
Examinations, Department of
Government Examinations
Chennai ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to evaluate the
answers in Question Nos.24 and 32 in the Bio-Botony paper written by the
petitioner in the examination held by the respondent for the higher secondary
course in Register No.902141; to direct the respondent to award full marks to
the petitioner for question Nos.24 and 32 and to issue the revised mark sheet
and pass such further order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiagarajan
^For Respondent 1 : Ms.V.Velumani, AGP (W)
:ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the
respondent to evaluate the answers for question Nos.24 and 32 in the
Bio-Botony paper written by the petitioner in the examination conducted by the
respondent for the Higher Secondary Course Certificate and consequently to
direct the respondent to award full marks to the petitioner for question
Nos.24 and 32 and to issue a revised mark sheet.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained the
following marks in the Higher Secondary Examination:
Physics : 200/200
Chemistry : 197/200
Biology : 195/200
The petitioner has immediately applied for re-valuation and paid the necessary
fees. She was given additional one mark on re-valuation. The petitioner also
applied for a xerox copy of the answer sheet relating to Bio-Botony paper and
she found that question No.24 was not valued at all. Similarly, according to
her, the answer for question No.32 also contained the mark of the examiner as
3+2 and after striking off the said mark, it has been corrected as 2+2.
Therefore she is entitled to totally five marks for that question.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on the writ side.
4. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would state that it is admitted by the respondent that on revaluation, it was
found that question No.24 was not valued at all and therefore the petitioner
was given two marks for that question and that in respect of question No.32,
one mark was reduced.
5. Perused the entire materials available on record. I also verified
the xerox copy of the answer sheet given to the petitioner. It is seen from
the xerox copy of the answer sheet that question No.24 was not valued earlier
and on re-valuation, two marks have been awarded to that question. In respect
of question No.32, the original examiner has awarded four marks, which has
been confirmed on re-valuation also. But the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner would state that a perusal of the said answer sheet would show
that the original examiner himself, while awarding marks, atleast in two
places has put “3+2”, totally meaning 5, which is the maximum mark. But
however, the number “3” has been struck off and made as “2”. Even at the end
of the page, the original examiner has awarded five marks and after striking
off the same, he has made it as “4”. It is admitted that on re-valuation, the
subsequent examiner has awarded only four marks in respect of question No.32.
Even though t here appears to be some discrepancy in awarding the marks by the
original examiner, this court is concerned only about the re-valuation marks
and when once the subsequent examiner has decided that the mark should be “4”,
this court cannot interfere in such circumstances. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also pointed out that there are some discrepancies in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. It is true that the respondent
has filed the counter affidavit with some mistakes and discrepancies. Though
the counter affidavit is filed in a hasty manner with some mistakes, a perusal
of the answer sheet would show that the marks awarded for question No.35 is
only “9” and not “10. Therefore there is absolutely no material against the
respondent. In these circumstances, I am of the view that at this stage this
court cannot interfere with the marks awarded to the petitioner on
revaluation. Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader, produced
before this court G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 21.04.2003 to show that while re-valuing
the papers, it is open to the examiner to even reduce the marks already
awarded. In addition to that, she also took me through the answer to question
No.35, in which the original examiner has awarded “1+5+4 = 10” marks. While
on re-valuation, the same has been reduced to “9”.
6. In the result, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot
be granted by this court, especially when in respect of question No.2 4, the
petitioner has been awarded “2” marks. She must be satisfied with that.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. No costs.
W.P.M.P.No.22980/2004 is closed.
Vsl
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
To
The Director of Government
Examinations, Department of
Government Examinations
Chennai