Reserved Judgement IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1602 OF 2008 (MS) Kamlesh Singh Rawat (Minor) ….Petitioner. Versus Board of Schools Education Uttarakhand Ramnagar, district Nainital ….Respondents. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate for respondents 17th April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner had appeared in the Intermediate Board Examination in the year 2000 and had secured 44 and 41 marks in English and History respectively. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner these marks are much less than what the petitioner actually deserves and therefore, the petitioner applied for scrutiny of the said answer sheets. However, before the result of the scrutiny could even be declared the petitioner had filed earlier Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1060 (MS) of 2008 which was disposed of on 1st July 2008 directing the Education Authorities to expedite the scrutiny of the petitioner’s mark sheet preferably within a period of four weeks. Consequently thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 19.07.2008 from the Joint Secretary (Scrutiny), Board of Schools Education, Uttarakhand by which the petitioner was informed that in compliance with the order of High 2 Court dated 30.06.2008, the answer copy of the petitioner was scrutinized and it was found that no change was required and the result of the petitioner will remain as it is. The order of Joint Secretary (Scrutiny) is contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari from this Court to quash the said order and further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to produce answer sheets in this Court, etc. 2. The main plank of argument of the petitioner is that there has been a violation of principle of natural justice and fair play inasmuch as the examiners have scrutinized the answer scripts of the petitioner behind his back and he was not personally asked to see the answer scripts and therefore, it is bad in the eyes of law. This argument must be rejected at the very outset as no principle of natural justice and fair play have been violated by the concerned authorities as in fact in the process of evaluation of answer papers or even the subsequent scrutinization of these papers no principle of natural justice and fair play is attracted inasmuch as no decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the petitioner is involved and the principle of natural justice and fair play cannot be extended beyond any rational limits and be carried to absurd lengths so as to make it mandatory that candidates who have appeared in public examination must be judged by the standards of principle of natural justice and fair play. Justice Mathew in his judgment in Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC Page 836 has said “it is not expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the audi aletram partem rule 3 to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be.” This observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court also becomes relevant in the present case inasmuch as in paragraph after paragraph the petitioner has stated that he had high expectations of getting at least 70 marks in English & Hindi. Paragraph 12 and 13 of his writ petition are relevant and therefore, they are being reproduced as under: “12. That the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was expecting at least 70 marks in English subject and more than 70 marks in history subject but in his marksheet, only 44 marks has been shown to have been awarded in English subject and similarly only 41 marks has been shown to have been awarded in history subject. 13. That the petitioner has reason to believe to expect much more marks in the aforesaid two subjects because in class X, XI and even in Half yearly examination of XII, he secured excellent marks. In the examinations of class XI, the petitioner secured 66% marks in English subject and 73% marks in History subject. In the half yearly examinations of class XII the petitioner secured 66% marks in English subject and 69% marks in History subject. In the Board examinations of the High school also, the petitioner secured 61.7% marks as a whole. In the half yearly home examination of class XII, the petitioner secured excellent marks to the extent of 67.2% marks as a whole in all subjects.” 4 3. This Court is of the opinion that it was not necessary for the concerned authorities to comply with the principle of natural justice and fair play and therefore on this aspect there is no ground of interference in this matter. 4. At this stage, it is interesting to refer to the prayers made by the petitioner. The prayers made by the petitioner are as follow: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19-07- 2008 passed by the Joint Secretary, (Scrutiny), Board of Schools Education, Uttarakhand, Ramnagar, district Nainital, the respondent no. 2. (Annexure-1 to this petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce answer-sheets of the petitioner of the Board of Intermediate examination of the year 2002, of two subjects-‘English’ and ‘History’ before this Hon’ble court for being scrutinized, examined or analyzed afresh in the presence of an expert in the subjects before the Registrar General of this Hon’ble court, at the cost of the petitioner. III. In the alternative, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to undertake an exercise to scrutinize, examine or analyze the answer-sheets of the petitioner afresh in two subjects—“English” and ‘History in the presence of the Additional Secretary or the Secretary of equivalent rank of the Board of Schools Education, Uttarakhand, Ramnagar, district Nainital, as also in the presence of the petitioner on his guardian. 5 IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to declare the result of fresh scrutiny within a period of 15 days from the date of scrutinizing the answer-sheets of the petitioner afresh in the aforesaid two subjects. V. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. VI. Award costs of this petition to the petitioner.” 5. Now the question would be whether such a relief can be granted to petitioner as prayed for? The answer is definitely in the negative. This court cannot substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the examiners, who are the experts in their subjects. It is clear that the examiners as well as scrutinizing authorities are expected to play fair and just and there is no reason to believe or attach any motive to such persons. In fact there is no such allegation also in the present writ petition. It is true that every student has a right to receive fair play in the examination and get the marks matching their performance. But who is to decide this! Undoubtedly it is the experts who have been appointed for this purpose, and who in their considered assessment have given certain marks to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner expects higher marks, this Court cannot summon answer scripts and ask any expert to re- examine the answer sheet before the Registrar General of this Court etc. as has been prayed for. In very exceptional cases, this procedure may be resorted to however, this Court does not feel any need or justification to undertake such exercise in the present case, which is entirely based on “expectation” of the petitioner. If all such candidates are permitted to inspect or revalue their answer sheets in 6 the manner in which is being sought in the present writ petition and even if a very small percentage, let us say 5% of all such candidates demand such an exercise, it would be large number involving thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the system out of gear as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkar Seth reported in (1984) 4 SCC Page 27. 6. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred above has stated in as under: “Further, it is in the public interest that the result of public examination when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.” 7. It has further been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred above: “Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical 7 expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded.” 8. It is also a contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been no application of mind on the part of the Education Authorities, at the time of evaluating the answer sheets of the petitioner, as far as English and History papers are concerned. Even the Scrutinizing Authorities, who have scrutinized the answer sheets, had not applied their mind. In short the petitioner is labouring under belief that since there has not been a proper evaluation of his performance in the examination, the order of Scrutinizing Authority should be set a side. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the State has denied the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that in compliance with the earlier order of this Court the copies of the petitioner was scrutinized and it is wrong to allege that there was no application of mind inasmuch as by such direction of this Court was there in 30 cases and out of 30 cases in which scrutiny was done, in 7 cases marks were actually increased and in 2 cases the marks were decreased and remaining 21 cases no changes were made. 8 10. This Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner has been sufficiently met inasmuch as the authorities have scrutinized the answer sheets of the petitioner, though they have found no ground for interference with the same. 11. This Court has no expertise to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner. The evaluation has to be done by the experts and if in its wisdom it finds that the petitioner deserves ‘X’ marks in the papers, so be it. It is not the case where any arbitrariness or mala fide has been alleged. 12. This Court cannot substitute itself for an expert. It is indeed true that had there been any defect in the procedure regarding correction of mark sheet then interference may be called for. Moreover in the present case Scrutiny Authorities also did not find any ground for interference. The prayer made by the petitioner, therefore, in this writ petition is entirely misconceived and no relief can be granted by this Court. 13. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.4.2009 Rathour