IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8978 of 2006 RASHMI KUMARI Versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD & ORS ----------- 5 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Board. This writ application has been filed for quashing of Annexure-5 by which respondents have published the result of the petitioner declaring her fail in the Mathematics paper of Matriculation Annual Examination of year 2005 and for a direction to the respondents to publish her result on the basis of marks allotted to her as evident from Annexure-2, 3, and 4. Case of the petitioner is that after Annual Examination of Matriculation cross-list was sent by the Board to the concerned school where her marks of Mathematics was shown as incomplete. Thereafter the Board issued the mark sheet vide Annexure-2 in which her marks in Mathematics was shown as 31. Mark sheet was also issued to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-3. Petitioner has also annexed extract of tabulation chart, as contained in Annexure-4 which also shows that she obtained 2 31 marks in Mathematics and to have passed examination in second division on the basis of her marks. On the basis of her said result petitioner took her admission in Sundervati Mahila College, Bhagalpur, in two years Intermediate Course. However, subsequently it appears that the Examination Board issued another mark sheet in which it was shown that she obtained 16 marks in Mathematics and therefore she was declared fail. Marks was also forwarded to the school vide Annexure-5 which is now under challenge. Respondent Board has filed counter affidavit in the case. From the tenor of the counter affidavit, it appears that some enquiry was made and it was found that marks of some of the students including this petitioner who appeared under Roll No. 245 was enhanced from 31 to 81, which is evident from Annexure-B. However answer sheet of maths of the petitioner was also got evaluated by some examiner and it was found that she had obtained 16 marks. Marks awarded to the petitioner by the said examiner separately is produced before this Court as 3 enclosure to Annexure-B at page 13 of the affidavit. Annexure-B, the note of the Deputy Secretary to the Chairman of the Board, shows that the petitioner’s marks were enhanced from 31 to 81. This admits that the petitioner had obtained 31 marks atleast whereas the enclosure to the said Annexure-B which is alleged mark allotted by some examiner on a separate sheet shows that she obtained 16 marks. This Court by order dated 19.07.2007 had directed learned counsel for the Board to produce the original answer sheet of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, original answer sheet of the petitioner in the subject of Mathematics has been produced. From perusal of the answer sheet, it is apparent that the petitioner’s answer sheet was evaluated by the examiner and she was awarded 31 marks. From the answer sheet it does not appear that the marks allotted to the petitioner for different questions was wrongly allotted to her. It also does not appear that the said marks allotted to the petitioner was ever revised 4 and/or re-evaluated. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Board that the answer sheet of petitioner for subject of mathematics was separately evaluated by some examiner and as per his evaluation on a separate sheet the petitioner obtained only 16 marks. There is no endorsement on the answer sheet to that effect by the head examiner or by the controller of examination, and therefore, the marks allotted to the petitioner by some examiner as bearing on page 13 as enclosure to Annexure-B can not be accepted. It is also pertinent to point out that as per note of the Deputy Secretary placed before the Chairman of the Board, petitioner had obtained 31 marks which was changed to 81. Petitioner is not claiming 81 marks. She accepts that 31 marks allotted to her in the paper was correct as communicated to the petitioner and the School vide Annexure-2. Therefore the mark sheet allotted to her as per Annexure-3 was correct. In that view of the matter, the 5 contention of the learned counsel for the Board is not acceptable and also there is no basis for the Board to contend that the enclosure to Annexure-B showing evaluation of her answer sheet and awarding 16 marks to her is correct. In the circumstances, on perusal of original answer sheet produced in this Court, it is held that in absence of any supporting document showing allotment of 16 marks to the petitioner as enclosed with Annexure-B, this writ application is fit to be allowed. Accordingly, the communication, Annexure- 5 along with the marksheet showing petitioner having obtained 16 marks in mathematics and having failed, is hereby quashed. It is directed that the marks allotted to the petitioner vide Annexure-3 be accepted as valid. Respondents are directed to act accordingly. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)