IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7631 of 2007 KHUSHBOO SRIVASTAVA & ORS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 12 20-10-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for Central Board of Secondary Education ( in short C.B.S.E.). The writ petition has been pressed only on behalf of petitioner no.1 Khushboo Shrivastava who missed to pass the competitive examination for Pre-medical examination by one marks but on the same marks she is said to have succeeded in Pre-dental examination of that year. On account of strong assertions made on behalf of petitioners that they were good students and had done well in the examination to secure successful marks, a Bench of this court vide orders passed earlier asked C.B.S.E. to produce the answer sheets of the petitioners on the condition that petitioners should deposit Rs.25,000/- each in order to prove their bona fide that their answers have been wrongly evaluated . Only petitionerno.1 deposited the aforesaid amount and her answer sheets in various subjects were produced before the court and were gone into with - 2 - reference to model answers available with the counsel for the C.B.S.E.After thorough perusal of the answer sheets and model answers the result of the petitioner after scrutiny as per information of the petitioner no.1 has been placed before this court through the supplementary affidavit which contains comparative chart of model answers given by petitioner no.1 with reference to certain questions in the papers of Botany, Zoology and Chemistry. This court was also taken through the comparative chart of answers given by petitioner no.1 and the model answers as well as the answers in the book of N.C.E.R.T. which is also incorporated in the chart. The reply to question no.3 (e) in the paper of Botany and the reply of the petitioner to question no. 20 (a ) -iii in Chemistry shows that her answers were correct as per the prescribed text book for those subjects but since the answers were to be given in the subjective manner, it was not in the same language as in the model answers. Thus, this court is satisfied that petitioner’s answer sheets were not correctly evaluated in the context of questions worth two marks. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the 2007 - 3 - examination the seats for the Pre-medical course have already been allotted and one year of study has been undertaken by the successful candidates. It is also not in dispute that the 2008 examination has also been conducted and admission has been granted on that basis to successful candidates. There was no interim order reserving any seat for petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the C.B.S.E. has opposed the writ petition by submitting that under the policy decision governing such examination there is no provision for re- evaluation or re-totaling of marks and such a policy has been tested even up to the level of Supreme Court and found valid. It has further been submitted that even if the model answers suffered from some kind of vagueness or were not exact so as to cover correct answers in the prescribed books, all the applicants have been tested on the basis of same model answers and hence any order for re- evaluating the two answers would require re-evaluation of the answers of all the candidates who were successful and have been pursuing their study in the Medical courses for the last one year or more. - 4 - In the facts of the case, this court finds itself helpless in granting any relief to the petitioner and in that view of the matter this writ petition is dismissed. However, this court is of the view that the C.B.S.E. must re-apply its mind to the practice of having model answers when the method of answer is supposed to be subjective. Model answers are suitable for objective tests only because two correct answers may be described by good students in two different languages and only an expert in the subject can evaluate the correctness of such answers. When the correct answers given by the petitioner for two questions did not fetch her the required two marks, it reflects upon the correctness of the assessment system adopted by the C.B.S.E. for evaluating subjective answers. The C.B.S.E. in its own wisdom may adopt a better system to finalize model answers or it may adopt objective questions even for the final examination. These are suggestions which must be considered by the experts with a view to prevent same kind of injury to any other candidate in future. In the facts of the case it is ordered that the amount - 5 - Naresh of Rs.25,000/- deposited by petitioner no.1, Khushboo Shrivastava should be refunded to her forthwith, with interest, if any.. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) - 6 - - 7 - Naresh - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - Naresh