1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12588 of 2011 Minor Selvi R.Vijaya Abinaya represented through her father and natural guardian S.Ravishankar. ... Petitioner Vs. The Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (SEC), Tamil Nadu. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to revalue the answers in question No.46,48,49,50,51,55 in Social Science paper and the answers in question No.11,12,16,39,42,43 and 45 in Tamil I Paper and the answers in question No.50,52,53 and 54 in Tamil II Paper of the petitioner bearing Registration No.1141873 of Selvi. Vijaya Abinaya in the March 2011 S.S.L.C. Public Examination conducted by the respondent and granting such other and further reliefs. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate O R D E R The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to revalue the answers in question Nos.46,48,49,50,51,55 in Social Science paper and the answers in question Nos.11,12,16,39,42,43 and 45 in Tamil I Paper and the answers in question Nos.50,52,53 and 54 in Tamil II Paper of the petitioner bearing Registration No.1141873 of Selvi. Vijaya Abinaya in the March 2011 S.S.L.C. Public Examination conducted by the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's daughter R.Vijaya Abinaya has secured first rank in her class as well as in her school through out the academic year 2010-2011 and when the family members of the petitioner and also the school had anxiously expected that his daughter R.Vijaya Abinaya would secure the top mark in the state level, but unfortunately, she was not able to get the mark expected by her daughter. After writing the March - 2011 examination, on proper application, the answer sheets were properly checked and they came to the conclusion that she secured only 486 marks out of 500. Immediately thereafter, on consultation with the experienced teachers, they applied for retotalling on 31.05.2011 in the subjects of Tamil Paper-I, Tamil Paper-II and Social Science after payment of the requisite fee of Rs.520/-. But the respondent on 05.07.2011 and 07.07.2011 confirmed the marks already awarded. After rejecting the request of the petitioner that they cannot change the mark, the petitioner applied for the copy of the answer sheet written by her daughter through Right to Information Act and obtained the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 xerox copy of the answer book in the above three subjects with key answer sheet. Once again, after consulting with the experienced teachers in the subjects, they came to know that his daughter should have been awarded 5 1/2 marks more in the Social Science, 4 1/2 marks more in Tamil I Paper and 3 1/2 marks more in the Tamil II Paper. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admittedly being a bright student and she secured first rank in her class as well as the schools for the academic year 2010-2011, she was not awarded the full mark 10 out of 10, instead she was awarded only 9 marks out of 10 in letter writing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's daughter should have got full mark viz., 5 for the answers to the questions 46,49,50,51 and 55 in the Social Science paper, but she was awarded only 4 marks each and for the question No.48, she was awarded only 4 marks out of 5. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner is she is entitled to get 4 1/2 marks likewise in Tamil Paper I, the difference of marks between the marks expected and marks allotted is 4 1/2 marks. Similarly, in Tamil Paper-II, 3 1/2 marks should have been awarded. 3. These arguments that the valuation of the above mentioned papers has not been properly done cannot be entertained, for, in fact, the petitioner has secured 486 marks out of 500, in Tamil-95 out of 100, in English-98 out of 100, in Maths-100 out of 100 , in Science subject also she has secured 99 out of 100 and similarly, in Social Science also she has secured 99 out of 100. Thereafter, the petitioner has also applied for retotalling on 31.05.2011 in the subjects of Tamil Papers-I and II and Social Science and the respondent also considering the application seeking retotal on 05.07.2011 and 07.07.2011 confirmed the marks already awarded. Therefore, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India finds no merits in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Secretary, State Board of School Examinations (SEC), Tamil Nadu. +1. CC to Mr.Veera. Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.No. 39172 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.NO.38778 akv W.P.(MD)No.12588 of 2011 09.11.2011 TR : 01.12.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/