IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.07.2009
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
W.P.NO.14021 OF 2009
J.Miracline
Minor aged about 16 years
rep. by her father and
Next friend Mr.T.Jesudoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Deputy Director of
Government Examination,
DPI Complex,
College Road, Chennai-6.
3. The Secretary,
State Board of School Examinations,
Chennai-6. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the second Respondent to issue the Xerox copy of the valued answer script in all the five subjects having Registration No.756529 in the 10th Standard Board Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent held in April 2009 for perusal, and direct the 2nd respondent to revalue the valued answer script in all the 5 subjects.
For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
For Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Government Advocate
O R D E R
By consent of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The father of the petitioner has filed the affidavit in support of the petition on behalf of his minor daughter J.Miracline. It has been stated that J.Miracline had completed her 10th Standard at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District, during the academic year 2008-2009. She had written the 10th standard Board Examinations, held in the month of April, 2009, conducted by the third respondent. Her Registration No is 756529. She had obtained 459 marks out of the total of 500 marks. Her subject wise marks are as follows:
Tamil
89/100
English
84/100
Maths
96/100
Science
95/100
Social Science
95/100
4. It has been further stated that even though the petitioner had written the 10th standard Board Examinations, very well, she was not awarded the correct marks in the mark list issued by the third respondent. When the petitioner had approached the second respondent, with a request for revaluation of her answer scripts, she was informed that no revaluation is permissible for the 10th standard Board Examinations, as per G.O.Ms.NO.64, School Education Department, dated 26.5.2003. However, there was a provision for re-totaling of the valued answer scripts. When she had asked for re-totaling of her answer script, in the subject of Tamil, she was intimated by the second respondent, through his proceedings Na.Ka.No.125361/R2/09 that the petitioner had got one mark more than what she had been awarded, originally. Thus, the revised mark sheet showed that the petitioner had obtained 90 marks in the subject of Tamil. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached the second respondent to provide the xerox copies of all the valued answer scripts, in all subjects, to know the real marks awarded to her. However, the second respondent had refused the request of the petitioner stating that there is no provision for issuing the xerox copies of the valued answer scripts, for the 10th standard Board Examinations. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. On instructions received from the respondents, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted that there is no provision available for giving the xerox copies of the answer scripts of the 10th standard Board Examinations. Further, there is no provision for revaluation of the answer scripts. Only re-totaling of the marks could be sought for by the candidate concerned, in accordance with the various Government orders passed, in respect of the issues relating to re-totaling and revaluation of the answer scripts of the various examinations.
6. The learned Government Advocate had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in THE SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. AYAN DAS & OTHERS (2007-4 L.W. 841). The relevant paragraphs of the said decisions read as follows:
6. The permissibility of re-assessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. V. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. Reported in (1984 (4) SCC 27). It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, Court cannot direct re-assessment/re-examination of answer scripts.
7. The courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court that model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Board. Then only the court can ask the production of answer scripts to allow inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors.(AIR 1983 SC 1230) it was held as follows:
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it would not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those textbooks. Those textbooks support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.
8. Same would be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases. The principles set out in Maharashtra Board case (supra) has been followed subsequently in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004 (6) SCC 714 = 2005-1-L.W.131), Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004 (13) 714) and President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Anr. v. D. Suvankar and Anr. (2007 (1) SCC 603=2007-4-L.W.104).
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Since there is no provision, by way of a Government order or otherwise, for providing the xerox copies of the answer scripts to the candidate concerned and as there is no provision for revaluation of the answer scripts, the respondents cannot be directed to comply with the request of the petitioner. A direction for revaluation of the answer scripts would only be given in rare cases, as held by the Supreme Court, in the decision cited supra. Since the petitioner has not been in a position to show that her case would fall under the category of a rare case and that she has been prejudiced by the valuation of her answer scripts of the 10th standard Board Examinations conducted in the month of April, 2009, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. No costs.
30.7.2009
Note: issue order copy on 5.8.2009
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lan
M. JAICHANDREN.J.
lan
lan
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Deputy Director of
Govt.Examination,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai-6.
3. The Secretary
State Board of School Examinations,
Chennai-6.
W.P.NO.14021 OF 2009
30.07.2009