W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 1 7 & 8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9661/2009 Date of decision: 7th August, 2009 PARUL SARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Salar M. Khan, Advocate. versus C.B.S.E. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with Mr. Sanyam Bhardwaj, Deputy Secretary(CBSE). + W.P.(C) 9662/2009 KSHITIJ AGGARWAL MINOR THR. HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN DR. VINEY KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Salar M. Khan, Advocate. versus C.B.S.E. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with Mr. Sanyam Bhardwaj, Deputy Secretary(CBSE). Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 2 2. Original answer sheets have been produced in the Court today and have been examined. The answer sheets do not reveal any calculation mistake, failure to mark or allot marks to answers. 3. The respondents have followed a system under which each answer sheet consisting of two papers is examined by two examiners in their respective subjects and then checked by two head/examiners or additional head examiner. The answer sheets reveal that the head examiner/ additional head examiner had in fact gone through the answer sheets. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have explained the entire system of marking/evaluation of AIPMT (Final) answer books. It is stated that in each of the four subjects, viz., Physics and Chemistry (Paper-I) and Botany and Zoology (Paper-II), two Head Examiners are appointed, i.e., total eight Head Examiners. Under the team of two Head Examiners, Additional Head Examiners are appointed for the purpose of evaluation. Normally, 8 to 12 Additional Head Examiners are appointed in each subject. There are six examiners under each Head Examiner. One day prior to commencement of the evaluation, all the Head Examiners and Additional Head Examiners discuss the question papers subject wise. Spot evaluation is done at AIPMT. On the date of evaluation, each Additional Head Examiner deliberates upon the question paper with the Evaluator in the first half. Sample paper books are given to each evaluator for marking and these answer books are checked by Evaluators and cross checked by W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 3 Additional Head Examiners. In case of difficulty, Additional Head Examiners discuss the problem with the Head Examiners. Tests checks are undertaken and in case it is found that evaluation by any examiner is not up to the required standard, the duty assigned is withdrawn. After evaluation process in both subjects is complete, all answer books are given to a group of experts for scrutiny. In the scrutiny, four Additional Head Examiners of concerned subjects are appointed and about 30-40 experts in a subject work as Scrutinizers under the supervision of Additional Head Examiners. During the scrutiny process, several aspects like whether all questions have been evaluated, whether there is a totaling mistake, whether the marks have been correctly carried forward to the first page, etc. are examined. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, I do not think any direction can be issued for re-evaluation of the mark sheets in the case of the petitioners specially when there was a specific term in Clause 13.1 of the Information Bulletin, which states that there is no provision for re-checking/re- evaluation or supply photocopy of the answer sheets or answer books for inspection to the candidates. My attention in this regard is also drawn to decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 10374/2004 titled Nirbhesh Saxena versus Central Board of Secondary Education and other cases in which similar request was turned down by a detailed order and the writ petitions were dismissed. In this case, the Court had examined whether a W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 4 candidate/student has right to re-evaluation and whether denial of the said right violates freedom of speech and expression or right to information. The said contention was rejected. This decision was followed in W.P. (C) No. 10984/2006 titled Ms. Akanksha Jain versus The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education and other cases. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. 7. The answer sheets have been returned to the counsel for the respondent-CBSE. There will be no order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. AUGUST 07, 2009 VKR