JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, C.J.
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against order dated 1-10-1996 passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has issued following directions to the State of M. P. and to the Secretary, M. P. Board of Secondary Education, Habibganj, Bhopal.
“18. In the result all the writ petitions are allowed with the following directions :
(i) The respondent Board shall communicate to students through the electronic and printing media that they can apply for scrutiny of marks, which shall include revaluation of the answer books within two weeks from today;
(ii) All the examinees shall be given two weeks time to file their applications for scrutiny of marks along with the requisite fee;
(iii) The Board shall on receipt of the applications by the examinees revaluate the same;
(iv) The result of the revaluation shall be communicated by the Board to the examinees expeditiously;
(v) The Board shall furnish to the State Government the list of teachers, who in its opinion did not perform their duties as examiner diligently; and
(vi) The State Government shall take appropriate action against the delinquent teacher within two months from the date of communication by the Board, in accordance with law.”
2. All the petitioners are students and they appeared in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination or High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) and sought scrutiny of their marks. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Board that ‘scrutiny of marks’ only means ‘re-totalling of marks’ and it does not permit interpretation of revaluation of answer books. In this context, learned Single Judge examined the case.
3. Appellant Board is a statutory body constituted under section 3 of the M. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1965 (for short the Act’). Powers have been conferred on the Board to take all necessary steps to conduct examination in a reliable, comprehensive and elaborate manner. Section 28 of the Act confers powers on the Board to make Regulations for carrying into the effect the provisions of the Act. In exercise of this power, the Board framed Regulations known as M. P. Board Secondary Education Regulation, 1965 (for short – the Regulation). Regulation 119 which is relevant for our purpose reads as under :
“119. A candidate who has appeared at an examination of the Board may apply to the secretary for the scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result in accordance with the rules framed by the Board.”
In pursuance of this Regulation 119, certain rules have also been framed by the Board which in its meeting held on 7-12-1981, took the following decisions :
(A) The examinees appearing in the examination conducted by the Board can make a request within two months from the date of declaration of the result, after paying prescribed fee for retotalling of the answer books examined.
(B) Passed students if make request then answer books of all subjects and in case of failed student or students entitled for supplementary, make application then the answer books of failed subject shall only be retotalled.
(C) The totalling shall be done by the members of the local Board, members of the Curriculum committee, teachers of State Educational Institutions, Educational Colleges, Institution of English Language and two senior lecturers of the Higher Secondary School. Both the members after seeing the answer book shall give their report separately.
(D) In case, in the answer book any question remained unmarked then it shall be evaluated by the teachers/lecturers of the concerned subject.
4. The petitioners (respondents) applied for re-totalling of their marks on payment of certain fee. Application is required to be made within a period of two months. It is not disputed that the candidates appeared in the examination and applied for retotalling of their marks as required under Regulation 119 read with the rules quoted above. But their applications were rejected and therefore they approached this Court.
5. Question before the learned single Judge was whether the expression appearing in Regulation 119 viz. ‘scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result’ means revaluation of the answer books or not. Learned single Judge has interpreted the words ‘scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result’ means that the answer books should be revalued. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has given the aforesaid directions to the Board. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeals have been filed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the general principle of interpretation is concerned, there is no difficulty and we need not refer to all cases on the subject. Question before us is very limited whether the word ‘scrutiny’ appearing in Regulation 119 and expression appearing in the rules framed by the Board at (A) ‘for retotalling of the answer book examined’ are to be construed to mean ‘revaluation of the answer books’ or not. With great respect, we do not agree with the view taken by learned single Judge. The word ‘scrutiny’ has been defined in Random House Dictionary of the English Language as ‘a searching examination or investigation, minute inquiry’. In the Legal Glossary, published by the Government of India, ‘scrutiny’ means ‘examination of anything, an official examination of the votes cast at an election in order to eliminate any votes that are invalid and to rectify or confirm the numbers stated in the return’. In the Webster’s New International Dictionary, word ‘scrutiny’ has been defined to mean ‘to search carefully’. In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, West Publishing Company, the word ‘scrutiny’ means ‘to examine or observe closely in detail, to investigate minute without any suggestion of criticism or suspicion’. Chambers English Dictionary explains ‘scrutiny’ as close, careful or minute investigation or examination.
7. So far as the dictionary meaning of the word ‘scrutiny’ is concerned, it means close examination. But the word ‘scrutiny’ is further qualified by the word ‘marks’. Thus, what is to be scrutinised is the marks and it does not mean revaluation of the answers given by the students in the answer books. Learned single Judge has proceeded to extend the meaning of the words ‘scrutiny’ to mean ‘revaluation of the answer books of the candidates’. Scrutiny of marks only means that the marks of the candidate shall be minutely examined by the authorities. Had the words ‘scrutiny of the answer books’ been mentioned without qualifying word ‘marks’, then the finding of the learned single Judge could possibly have been accepted. But the fact remains that the word ‘scrutiny’ is qualified by word ‘marks’. Therefore what is to be scrutinised is the marks shown in the answer given by the candidate. The view taken by the learned single Judge on the face of it does not appeal to us.
8. Revaluation is one thing and scrutiny of marks is another thing. This has been further clarified when the Board has framed the rules in which clause (A) clearly says that the examinee appearing in the examination conducted by the Board can make a request within two months from the date of declaration of the result, after paying prescribed fee for retotalling of the answer books examined. The expression ‘retotalling’ makes it more than evident that what is to be examined is the totalling of marks obtained. Therefore, the view taken by the learned single Judge extending the meaning of word ‘scrutiny’ to revaluate the entire answer book is incapable of interpretation of the expression ‘scrutiny of marks’. An attempt was made on behalf of the Board to show as to how the statute is to be interpreted and in that connection learned counsel for the Board had referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and privy council in the cases of Shri Ram Narain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459, C. V Raman v. Management of Bank of India, AIR 1988 SC 1369, Brutus v. Cozens, (1972) 2 All.E.R. 1297 and Seramco Ltd. Superannuation Fund Trustees v. Income Tax Commissioner, (1976) 2 All.E.R. 28. We need not burden this judgment by referring to all these cases on the question of interpretation of the statute. Suffice it to say that the expression ‘scrutiny of marks’ means scrutiny of marks and not beyond that. If the Board intended that the scrutiny should be regarding the valuation of the answer book, then there was nothing to prevent it in clearly stating that revaluation of the answer books is permissible. Scrutiny of marks means that the marks have to be scrutinised by re-totalling them on the sheet and if there is miscalculation in the marks, the same can be rectified and result can be announced. Rule (D) of the rules framed by the Board in its meeting dated 7-12-1981 states that in case in the answer book, any question remained unmarked then it shall be evaluated by the teachers/lecturers of the concerned subject. That means that wherever any question has not been examined and remained unvalued, it is also permissible. That shows that wherever the authorities wanted to provide for evaluation the same was provided.
In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543. Though this question did not directly come up in that case but it was with regard to the question whether the principles of natural justice should be applied or not. Their Lordships after examining the Regulation 104 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 observed that the verification of marks in a particular subject means only the marks obtained by candidates shall be verified as to whether they have been correctly totalled or not. It has been observed by their Lordships as under :-
“The conduct of the final examination and the evaluation of the candidates’ performance and the compiling and release of results are all to be carried out by the Divisional Board in accordance with the instructions to be issued by the State Board from time to time. Therefore it was perfectly within the competence of the Board, rather it was its plain duty, to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to the conduct of the examination as to whether disclosure and inspection of the answer books should be allowed to the candidates, whether and to what extent verification of the result should be permitted after the results have already been announced and whether any right to claim revaluation of the answer books should be recognised or provided for. All these are undoubtedly matters which have an intimate nexus with the objects and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore, within the ambit of the general power to make regulations conferred under sub-section (1) of section 36. In addition, these matters fall also within the scope of clauses (c), (f) and (g) of sub-section (2) of the said section.”
In somewhat similar circumstances, the matter arising from Orissa came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa v. Jashodhara Padhi, C.A. No. 1362 of 1990 decided on 28th February, 1990 in regard to examination held by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa in March, 1989, in which a similar prayer was made for revaluation. It was observed by their Lordships as under :-
“There is no rule permitting revaluation of answer given by a candidate, in the absence of any such rule, no examinee has a right to insist for the revaluation of his answer books.”
9. However, in the case of Paritosh Bhupesh (supra) Regulation 104 specifically provided that no revaluation of answer sheet shall be done. Though there is no specific provision in the Regulation or the Rules framed by the Board prohibiting revaluation, that would not create room for revaluation.
10. It is no doubt true that every student deserves to be dealt with fairly and honestly but nonetheless the provisions which are appearing in the Regulations and the Rules cannot be interpreted to mean which is not capable of interpretation. A provision should be interpreted in the manner which may advance the cause of justice and fair play. At the same time, the provision should be given natural meaning without any violence to the language employed by the statute. The Statute should be given ordinary and natural meaning keeping in view the principles of fair play and justice but that does not mean that total violence should be done to the language. For the sake of repetition we again state here that the scrutiny of marks means that marks alone have to be scrutinised or minutely examined. That does not mean that the whole answer-book has to be revalued or the entire revaluation of the answer-sheet should be done. This expression is incapable of interpretation as put by the learned Judge.
11. Our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel Smt. J. Choudhary, appearing for the Board to various decisions in this regard. In the case of Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1 which is a case of Civil Service Examination Rules, their Lordships held :
“While interpreting a statute the consideration of inconvenience and hardships should be avoided and that when the language is clear and explicit and the words used are plain and unambiguous, the court is bound to construe them in their ordinary sense with reference to other clauses of the Act or Rules as the case may be, so far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of whole statute or series of statutes/Rules/Regulations relating to the statute, the Court has to ascertain the intention of the law making authority in the backdrop of the dominant purpose and the underlying intendment of the said statute and that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language and applied as far as its explicit language admits consistent with the established rule of interpretation.”
It is true that the Courts should normally interpret the provision in its ordinary meaning and words appearing should be given their natural meaning and should be consistent with the Acts and Rules, for which it was enacted. So far as these norms are concerned, we are satisfied that the present Regulation 119 read with clauses (A) and (D) of the Rules framed by the Board clearly stipulates that the Board is under an obligation to scrutinise the marks or retotal the same. Therefore, by reading Regulation 119 conjointly with the Rules or guidelines framed by the Board, the only natural meaning that flows therefrom is that only the marks obtained by a candidate have to be retotalled and not the revaluation of the answers given by the candidate.
12. Our attention was also invited to the case of Delhi High Court in Parent Forum for M. E. v. Central Board of Secondary Education, AIR 1994 Delhi 44. In this case also, conduct of examination was challenged and in this case also their Lordships did not direct any revaluation of the copies but emphasised that looking to the competitive world these days, a proper care should be taken by the Examination conducting Bodies to see that correct and honest valuation of the answer books is done. But it is nowhere laid down that the answer-sheets be re-valued under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act.
13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents (Petitioners) that the Board in its return and during the course of arguments pleaded before the learned Single Judge that the task of revaluation is an impossible task where lacs of students appear in the Secondary and Higher Secondary examinations and it will be hazardous to undertake the exercise of revaluation. It is true that it is a big task and if interpretation which is sought to be given is accepted then it will cause greater hardship than advance the cause of justice. Be that as it may, hardship may be one of consideration but that is not decisive of the matter. However, we have examined ourselves the provisions of the Regulations as well as the guidelines framed by the appellant Board and we are satisfied that the expression ‘scrutiny of marks’ of ‘retotalling of answer books’ does not mean revaluation of the whole of the answer sheet. With great respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not appear to be correct and we set aside the order dated 1-10-1996 passed by the learned single Judge.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent (petitioners) have submitted that in some of the cases, as a result of impugned order, certain revaluations have been undertaken and pursuant to the same, marks of some candidates have been improved. Startling example has been brought to our notice that one Ku. Vinita Rupra has secured 80 marks on revaluation in Maths paper whereas in the original assessment she was given only 14 marks. Some other examples have also been brought to our notice which speak volumes about the lack of care bestowed by the examiners. These may be rare examples. Nonetheless, it speaks lack of care on the part of the examiner due to which marks of the candidates in Mathematics are raised from 14 to 80 on revaluation. The Board should take proper measures against those examiners who have committed such glaring mistakes by properly admonishing them or rather denying them further examination of the copies. We do not want to lay down any guidelines and we leave it to the Board who is the best judge in the matter. We only direct that proper care should be taken in appointing examiners and to see that the students are carefully and honestly dealt with. However, those candidates who have already improved their results consequent to revaluation made under the order of this Court their result may accordingly be declared. Their revaluation will not be affected by this judgment.
15. Learned counsel for the Board informs that examiners are mostly government teachers and in the cases where teachers/examiners were found wanting, matter has been taken by the Board with the Government and some of them are facing disciplinary action. Be that as it may, we leave it to the Board for doing needful in the matter as the career of students is involved. We, however caution the Board that no leniency be shown to errant examiners and they should be severely dealt with as the students’ career are involved and it can be spoiled by reckless examination of their answer-sheets.
14. As a result of above discussion, we allow all the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 1-10-1996. There shall be no order as to cost.