IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25816 of 2008 Between: V.M. Swathi Rep.by her Father& Guardian V.Madhu,S/o.Krishnaiah, Age:46 R/o. Naidupet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Board of Intermediate Education Rep. by its Secretary Nampelle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction holding that the action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and direct the respondent Board to award one more mark for question No.7 and two marks for question No.9 in Physics answer script as they are correct as per the key answers and as per the text book published and prescribed by the respondent Board. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: KUM.C.SINDHU KUMARI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 25816 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondent-Board in not awarding one more mark for question No.7 and two marks for question No.9 in Physics as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondent-Board to award one more mark for question No.7 and two marks for question No.9 in Physics answer script as they are correct as per the key answers and as per the text book published and prescribed by the respondent- Board. It is the case of the petitioner that she secured 554 marks out of 600 marks in X Class and joined Intermediate Course of 2007-09 at Viswam Junior College, Naidupet. She took Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry as optional subjects. She appeared for I year Intermediate examination conducted by the respondent Board in March, 2008 and secured 458 out of 470 marks. As she was not satisfied with her performance in the examination held in March, 2008, she again appeared for advanced supplementary examinations held in June, 2008 for the subjects in English, Sanskrit and Physics and got 94 out of 100 marks for English, 98 out of 100 for Sanskrit and 57 out of 60 for Physics. Not being satisfied with the marks awarded in Physics, she sought for reverification or revaluation of Physics answer script by paying the required fee of Rs.600/-. The respondent Board sent Xerox Copy of revalued or re-verified Physics answer script to the petitioner wherein it was found that the petitioner was awarded one mark for question No.7 and no marks for question No.9 though the answers are correct. The said answers tally with the scheme of valuation (Key answers) given to the examiners as well as the text book published and prescribed by the respondent Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that as regards question No.7, the examiners at the re-verification or revaluation ought to have awarded 2 marks, it being a short answer type question, as the answer is correct and there is no question of splitting the marks. As regards question No.9, though the answer is correct as per the text books and the key furnished to the examiners, no marks were awarded to it. Though the petitioner had made representation to the respondent Board about the said mistakes in valuing the answer script of the petitioner and went personally and pointed out the said mistakes to the authorities of the Board and though the Principal of the College addressed a letter to the respondent Board on 3.8.2008, there is no reply or response from the respondent-Board. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the marks secured at the Intermediate Examinations are very important. From 2009 onwards, 25% of the marks secured at the Intermediate Examinations will be added to the marks secured at the EAMCET and even one mark would make all the difference in securing the rank at the EAMCET. Therefore, inaction on the part of respondent-Board in awarding one more mark for question No.7 and two marks for question No.9 in Physics is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent-Board has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after re-verification by the Re-verification Board consisting of one Senior Lecturer and two Junior Lecturers, the Committee awarded one mark for question No.7 in Physics Paper-I and the total marks of the candidate were changed from 56 to 57. The Re-verification Committee members have re-verified the answers to question Nos. 7 and 9 in accordance with the scheme of valuation prepared by subject experts in Physics subject and based on it, the committee awarded one mark for question No.7 and confirmed zero marks for question No.9. After re-verification, the Re-verification Committee opined that there is no change for question No.9. The decision of the Re-verification Board in awarding the marks is final. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner stating that re-verification is incorrect and petitioner cannot be deprived of one more mark for question No. 7, as the same is a short-answer type question and one gets full marks of 2 or no marks at all but there would be no splitting of marks for such type of question as per the scheme of valuation. Likewise, she cannot be denied marks for question No.9 when another candidate is given marks for the exactly similar answer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused all the material available on record. At the outset, it is relevant to note the marks secured by the petitioner when she appeared for I year Intermediate Examination conducted by the respondent Board in March 2008, which are as follows: English - 94/100 Sanskrit - 98/100 Maths IA - 75/75 Maths IB - 75/75 Physics - 56/60 Chemistry - 60/60 Not satisfied with the marks secured in English, Sanskrit and Physics, the petitioner applied for improvement and accordingly appeared for the said subjects in the advanced supplementary examinations held in June, 2008 and secured the marks as under: English - 94/100 Sanskrit - 98/100 Physics - 57/60 As seen from the above, the petitioner has secured 94% marks in English, 98% in Sanskrit, 100% in Maths IA, 100% in Maths IB, 100% in Chemistry and 95% in Physics. With an intention to secure more marks, she has appeared for improvement. The claim of the petitioner is that if the Physics paper was corrected properly, she would have got 60/60. Generally speaking, the Courts will not entertain the claim of a student for revaluation of examination papers unless there is such a Rule or provision available for that purpose. Revaluation is asked for getting pass marks, generally by students who fail in particular subject. This is not one such case wherein a student is seeking revaluation of the papers for the purpose of getting bare pass marks. The petitioner has secured more than 90% marks in all the subjects. Therefore, she has approached this Court by saying that she has answered all the questions properly but they were not corrected as per law. Against question No.7, which is a short-type question, the answer is very simple and it could not have been otherwise. The question and answer read as follows: “Q.No.7: Give the equation connection ‘G’ and ‘g’. Ans: g=GM ” R Total marks allotted to the question were ‘two’, but the petitioner was awarded only one mark. This sort of practice of allotting one mark splitting the allocated marks of ‘two’ for a short-question is not permissible. Either the answer could be correct or wrong, but not otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner sought for not revaluation but re- correction of the paper, as the correction of the paper was not done as per law. Likewise, Question No.9 and the answer given by the petitioner to the said question read as under: “Q.No.9: When will be a heat engine having maximum efficiency? Ans: Heat engine will have maximum efficiency When it works in reversible process”. The petitioner has claimed that answer in similar words was given for the said question by another student with Hall Ticket No.0808134719, as follows: “The heat engine will have maximum efficiency when engine is working in reversible process” and full marks were awarded to the said student but the same was denied to her. In the counter, it is stated that the matter was referred to the Re-verification Committee and the Committee felt that the answer was not proper and it was not the same as is mentioned at page 332 of the text book. It is unfortunate that such a stand was taken by the respondent-Board. At page 332 of the Intermediate First Year Physics Text Book, printed by Telugu Akademi, Hyderabad, the importance of reversibility is explained as under: “(c) Importance of Reversibility: Out of all the heat engines working between the given temperatures of source (T) and sink (T), the engine working in a reversible process will have the highest efficiency” If the above answer is compared with the answer given by the petitioner to Question No.9, it cannot be said that there was any variance. Therefore, on the face of it, the opinion expressed by the Re- verification Committee is wrong. Thus, it is clear that the answers given by the petitioner to Question Nos.7 and 9 were not properly corrected. As stated above, this is not a case of revaluation but this is a case of improper correction of certain answers given by the examinee i.e. the petitioner, who is seeking the pride of passing the examination with distinction, which is denied to her in the guise that she is asking for revaluation of the paper which is not permissible under the law and the Courts cannot go into such things. Generally, revaluation means that the answer which was corrected by the Examiner did not carry the required marks and, therefore, requires to be revalued. The question of revaluation, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. It is only a proper correction of the paper of the examinee, which needs to be done. Therefore, the respondent is directed to re-correct the answers given by the petitioner to Question Nos. 7 and 9 of Physics Paper-I of Intermediate I year and then award marks as per law. This exercise shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 24-4-2009. MVB.