THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.26506 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Gunnam Gokul Krishna son of Gopal Rao ..Petitioner Vs. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.26506 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER The petitioner appeared for the II year Intermediate examination in March- 2007, conducted under the supervision of the 2nd respondent. He cleared all the subjects in the 2nd year except the Mathematics-II B paper. As every student, the petitioner also expected excellent marks in Mathematics. He applied (by paying the prescribed fee) for a copy of the answer script in the said paper. It was furnished to him on 13-07-2007 by the 2nd respondent. He claims to have found glaring irregularities in the awarding of marks for the paper. The petitioner contends that correct marks were not awarded to answer Nos.10 and 11. He claims entitlement of two marks to the answer in respect of Q.No.10, where no marking was awarded. For answer to question No.11 claims entitlement of four marks but asserts to have been awarded only one mark. The petitioner is seen to have answered Q.No.11 two times adopting separate steps for arriving at the answers. For the first attempt to Q.No.11, the petitioner was awarded two marks and for the second attempt one mark. The higher mark awarded was taken into consideration. The petitioner claims to have got the answers verified by one Ramanujam Institute of Mathematics, Rajahmundry and asserts to have been informed by the said institute that the paper was carelessly valued. In response to the averments in the writ petition Mrs.Sindhu Kumari the learned Standing Counsel for the Board of Intermediate Education (BIE) states that as per the Rules and Regulations governing evaluation of Intermediate examination, re-verification of the answer scripts would be done only where answers are not valued at all or awarded ”0” by the examiner. There is no revaluation in respect of answers where some mark is awarded. The answer scripts of the petitioner were revalued as per the norms of the BIE and since it was found that there is no variation in the total marks awarded in the first instance, no revaluation was done. The learned counsel further states that in respect of Q.No.10 no mark was awarded but for Q.No.7 one mark was awarded by mistake. However in the OMR sheet one mark is shown against Q.No.7 erroneously while no marks is recorded for Q.No.10. The error has thus been reversed by complimentary error in the OMR, is the contention. With regard to Q.No.11 it is contended that the petitioner has answered this question at two stages in the answer script and following two methods of resolution of the question, which are alternate. For one of the methods i.e., the first attempt, the petitioner was awarded two marks and one mark for the second method. Since the higher of the two marks should be taken into consideration, the petitioner has been awarded two marks for Q.No.11. With regard to the petitioner’s contention that the answer to Q.No.11 being correct, the petitioner was entitled to four marks instead of two awarded, the learned counsel states that as per the rules of evaluation of Intermediate examinations a revaluation award of marks is permitted only where the examiner either fails to evaluate an answer at all or grants “0” marks no revaluation is permitted where some mark is awarded for a question. The contention is that even if two marks were erroneously granted for Q.No.11 the rules do not permit a revaluation now. Accuracy in evaluation of answer scripts is certainly a discernable social value. Equally expeditious evaluation of Intermediate Examination papers is an important social value given the circumstance that Intermediate Examination is the stepping stone for future professional or other pursuit in education. A time bound programme of evaluation is therefore a necessity. We do not operate in a perfect world. The existing imperfections of the real world will have to be balanced and prioritized depending upon the contemporaneous social necessities, given the large volume of Intermediate students appeared every year and the voluminous load on the examiners. The BIE has evolved a scheme/criteria for evaluation which posits no revaluation of the answer scripts where some marks are awarded for an answer even if the marking be erroneous. In the context of the prescribed marking criteria, the criteria have been evolved by the Board to achieve the other societal value, namely expeditious evaluation of the Intermediate examinations. In any event the petitioner does not challenge the regulations, which prohibit a revaluation where incorrect marks are awarded. The absence of any such challenge and in the context of the fact that the criteria do not appear facially perverse or arbitrary, in the considered view of this court the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. Expeditious evaluation and finality to the process of evaluation is an important societal value, we need say no more. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 5TH FEBRUARY, 2008 Note: Issue cc As soon as Possible (B/o) *TSNR/PVSN