IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1315 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LEKSHMI N.R., AMULYA CHADIYA LANE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION. 2. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R2 SHRI DILIP MOHAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)No.1315 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF A SERIES OF REPORTS PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBUMI DAILY. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vgd S.SIRI JAGAN ----------------------------- WP(C) No.1315 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Petitioner appeared for the state eligibility test (SET) conducted by the 2nd respondent on 27th May 2007, passing of which is an essential qualification prescribed for being considered for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers. The petitioner did not secure 50% minimum marks required for a pass in the test. The petitioner's subject was Chemistry. According to the petitioner, except Chemistry, for all other subjects moderation of 5 marks was given. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation seeking moderation marks for Chemistry as well, which if granted, the petitioner would also pass the test. The petitioner has another contention that while valuing the answer sheets one question was deleted for which no marks were awarded and if marks were awarded for that question, the petitioner would have passed the examination. On the said contention the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “ a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents to include the marks obtained for the question which was deleted from valuation while computing the pass mark and also while working out the percentage of the marks. b) a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation.” 2. The counsel for the 2nd respondent opposes the prayers of the petitioner. According to him there is no question of discrimination insofar as W.P.C.No.1315 of 2008 2 the 2nd respondent has decided not to give moderation for the subject Chemistry for all candidates. Further in respect of deletion of one question, the 2nd respondent would contend that after deleting one question, maximum marks were also reduced by the marks alloted to that question and the candidates were required to secure 50% of the reduced maximum marks and the petitioner cannot therefore complain. 3. I have considered rival contentions in detail. 4. At the outset I note that the petitioner does not allege any malafides or improper motives on the part of the respondents in the matter. This court cannot go into the question as to whether the 2nd respondent was correct in not granting moderation for the subject Chemistry. Moderation is not a right, it is only a concession. When the respondents take a policy decision not to award moderation marks for Chemistry as a whole the petitioner cannot complain of discrimination. I am of the opinion that when standards of education in this state are going down day by day, it is in the best interest of the state that some effort is made for redeeming the situation. I am of the opinion that refusal of moderation would certainly be one step in that direction. It is also to be noted that passing SET is a qualification prescribed for being considered for selection of Higher Secondary School teachers to teach our students. Therefore only really qualified candidates should be allowed to pass the SET. As such I do not find anything wrong in the 2nd respondent deciding not to give moderation marks for Chemistry as a whole. W.P.C.No.1315 of 2008 3 5. As far as the second contention is concerned insofar as the maximum marks have also been reduced by the marks state stipulated for the deleted question and the candidates are required to secure only 50% of the reduced maximum marks for a pass, there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent, especially since the petitioner does not allege any malafides against the respondents. Therefore I do not find any merit in the above writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE vgd