Iw BILASPUR WP NO 7/ 2005 / Ku Rxcha Vyas {Mmor}, Aged about 17 vears, Through her father Shn' Pankaj Kumar Vyas S/a Shri S.R.Vyas, Aged about 47 years, R/o Qr.No.H—5, Gandhi, Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Ambikapui‘, Dist : Sarguja—(C.G.) Versus Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Education, New Delhi The Central Board Secondary Education, Through Secretary Delhi WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTECLES 226 l 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA o tag; JM V Qwg» ‘ mtm G nof?‘ 9f m6 " f . \c‘CF wmasgm B‘s‘ mm Eimamxv w WE \ 0f 2 XI-HC-78 algal ¥ §HI$ . ._\J\JP.\\./3.I WRK')\O_S‘ §H 200 mam (W) mmmma ' mma‘wm $Wsnéar 19.9. 2005 5hri AN. Pandey, counse! f Heard. The pe‘ri‘rioner has moved 1' is wri‘t pefifion under Article 226/227 of‘l‘he Consfifu‘rion of India see ing direcfion againsf responde‘nf-NOJ for revalun‘rion of the answer sh efs of .subjec‘r Physics, Chemisrry é Biology. Brief fads lending 1'0 fili g bf fhis wri1' ’pefifion- are fha‘l’ The petitioner herein apheared in C 12’“ exgminafipn but she couid no? pqs's fhe examinafion, as she co secure oniy 13 marks'in Physics, 16 marks in Chemistry 6i 16 marks in ioiogy ouf of 100 marks. Further case, of The pefifioner is fhaf fhe pefi oner never faiied in her enfire career and she never go? less fhan 57% arks' When The pefi'rioner came 1'0 know about fhe resuif she sho fa iearn abouf fhe result as fhe pe‘ri‘rioner was expec'ring more ma s Than The marks awarded To her. The peTiTioner applied for revaluaTion buT The respondenfs are saying ThaT There is no provision for revalual'i n, Therefore, They are not revaluo‘ting. Thereafter The peTiTioner applie for re-foTaling buT The respondenT- Board hos communicaTed vlde co mumcaTIon daTed 372005 That The resulT declared by The Board is co ecT The law on The poInT Is ThaT only in excepTional cases The CourT can inTerfere and ask for re-valua'ti where There is no prowsion for re- valuation. In The matter of Maharashtra 5fare Board of Secondary and The pefi‘rioner. Wham i s u m e o Xl-HC-78 maimm wmaamim mmmmm v—Zz- WW#WWV ’ aiwanést Higher 5econdary Educarian vs. Pa Piraa‘y Bhupesh Wardvefh reporred in AIR 1984 5c 1543 if has been helH fha‘l‘ : ......The Courf cannof si‘l' in evolved by fhe legislafure body.'IT may be a wise p menf over The wisdom of *he policy The subordina're reguiqfion—making icy which will fully effectuate flie- pur'pose of The enactmenT or' T may be lacking in effec‘Tiveness and hence calling for revision an improvement BuT any drawbacks in The policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will noT render iT ulTra vires and The CourT r prudenT policy, buT is even a foolish in iTs opinion, iT is noT a wise one, and ThaT iT will noT reall serve To effecTuaTe The purposes of The AcT. The legislaTure and iTs delegaTe are The sole reposiTories of The power To decide whaT ’ maTTers covered by The inTerference by The CourT u before iT con be said To su er from any legal i'nfirmiTy, in The sense of iTs being, wholly making pOWer of iTs- being i of The parenT enacTmenT or in violaTion of any of The limiTaTions imposed by The ConsTiTuT oT sTrike iT down on The ground ThaT olicy should be pursued in relofion To AcT and There is no scope for ess The parTicular provision impugned yond The scope of The regulaTion- nsisTenT wiTh any of The provisions .....The Court. should be exTremely relucTonT To subsTiTuTe iTs wn views as To whaT is wise, prudenT and proper in relaTion Toac formula-red by professional emic maTTers in preference To Those n possessing Technical experTise and mmqi$ ..... In... ..................... mono msim(q3iaaa) @ } d g c e o i . e f ‘ Xi—Hc-7s mmmm inn-In‘nnuui E200 @3 anésrm (Wm) msmm' ‘ awranéstm . WW#WW aiwa'nésr ,5..— r-ich expérience of an day-Today working of educc‘rionnl s comroiiing Them." Dealing wifh The confenfion gruden'rs who do very well in 'ihe examination, will be highly diced if *here is no“provision for revalua‘i'ion, and Therefore, Co should interfere in such mailers, the Supreme Court, held thus: ”I1- will be wholly wrong or- The Cour? 'l’o make n pedani'ic and purely idealisfic’ approach o ‘rhe problems of This na'rure, isolated from the actual realities grass root problems involved in the working of the system an unmindful of the consequences which would emanate If a purely ' eaiistic View as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propoun It Is equally important that the Court should also, as for as poss le, avoid any deasion or interpretation of a statutory provision, le or bye-Jaw which would bring about the result of rendering th system unworkable in practice." Considering the question whet er a right to revaluation should be recognized while examining the lidity of a Rule barring revaluation, the Supreme Court held “ We are unable to agree wuth the further reason stated by the High Court that smce e student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his performance' it will be a enial of the right to such fair play if m ? i ins'rifu‘rions and The dep 1' p 'u u d d ' v @ WVmqi$ ...................I................ «1200 arks X!-HC-78 W§qi$ ..q ........ .u ........................ mzoo @ ana21w (W) mataitaaiai ammuam'm ' ' mmifwm .16— wwma mmw anésr speci’aliy‘li‘n subjects like afhema'rics and Sciance, if is some‘rimes open f0 the Cour‘r 1'0 have look «1' The answer-sheet and compare wi‘rh fhe model answe s papers and- if There are gross discrepancies in awarding arks, if is always open to fhe Cour'i' To direc1‘ The Board fo revalu e ‘rhe marks." The principles have been enunciated in Pam-7 of The anoTher judgmenT of a Division Bench o High CourT of M.P‘ in The maTTer- of Pranslm Indw'khya (Minor) Vs. 5mm of MP. reporTed in 2005 (2) MRLJ 315.: a. A sTudenT has no righT To seek revaiuaT-ion of an answer-scrim” unless The rules gov ng The exominaTion specifically provide for revaluation. A pr vision for ‘scruTiny’ or ‘reToTalling' of marks or ‘rechecking T e resulTs’ in The Rules does noT enTiTle a sTudenT'To seek reeval dTion‘. b. Where The rules do no provide for revaluoTion, The High CourT will noT normally direc The producTion of The'onswer scripTs for iTs scruTiny or order .revaluaTion. BuT in rare and excepTional cases {Nhe nialafides or Tampering is made ouT, or where injusTice has been caused on ‘accounT of gross negligence, The CourT ay direcT revaluation in exercise of iTs jurisdlcTion under ArTi le 226 of The ConsTiTuTion e i c@ Xl-HC~78 m§wi$ n. '--.u..--.‘.--...u..nt.y $11200 maW (W) mmmm ammau‘mim mm#'ww . __6'_ , $Ww€a y‘ " ‘ , mmmma b” c. Ascéhoinmenf of m fides and tampering dzpends on facts of the case‘ and for Thaf purpose, if necessary, fhe answer scripf may be summon d. negligence resulting in Injustice” is a more difficuh exe ise. A siudem' who has consisrem'iy secured very high m rks in a subjecf in 'rhe lasi' few years examina'rions. is sh 'ro have foiled in such wbjecf, the Cour? may, consider i1 '1-0 be primo facie evidence of such ' negligence and call fo The'answer-scrip‘rs. (The mere foe-r fha‘l' a sfudenf feels T he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannoi' b ground to call for answer scripi's). On securing The answeri g—scrip‘rL'l'he Cour? may examine i'r or foke The assistance o a qualified Teacher To examine iT. If The CourT finds any gros negligence resul‘l'ing in injusTicevwhich shocks ifs judicial con cience, lT may direoT re-wluorion. e. auT change in marks n accoun'r of percepTional differences in a ground for re—valuaTion. DifferenT examiners may evalu‘ e The same answers differenTly resulTing in lesser or higher m ks being awarded. Re—valuaTion is no? To be 'ordered merely b cause anoTher valuer is of The View Thai The marks should have been different In TradiTional examinaTions where he purpose is To TesT The knowledge, grammar, logic or r ing, The perceptions abOuT The answers assessmenT :cannoT a o h e n Xl-HC-78 G49 . mqi$ ........;..'......."...........-'. ..... “i200 V ané’eiw(W) marméaiai awmmtm , mmmm‘a m‘mwwmm r71 am%wen%sr may v3ryvvfrom examiner To exhminer. (Of course where The exaniina‘rion is of objec'rive Type, where The sfuderrf is merely 1'0 mark ‘yes' or ‘no’ or choose one of The mul‘ripk ansWer-s, fhere canno'r be any difference in vahafion). While fairness in e nciions is impliedly aseLired by fhe Board, exactness in v on in individual cases can nei‘rher be assured nor be claimed. Cerfain margin of human error, over- sight and perceptional difference is par-1' of 1’he valuation sys‘l‘em, where 'rhou ds' or lacs of answer scripfrs are evaluafed by hundreds r fhousands of evaluators. Therefore, even where The Court s cures The answerfscrip‘rs and examines if or gets if examined an independenf Teacher, re-valua‘i‘ion should no‘l‘ be order d merely because fhere is some difference in valuation r because one or fwo answers have no? been valued or have bee wrmglv,valued. To repeat, mala fides I ' or Tampering or gross gligence (and no? small or negligible errors or percepfional ahanges) is ’a condi‘rion preceden‘i' for ordering re-valua‘l'ion.“ On applying fhe said princijles, I am clear That The pe‘i'iTioner in I ‘This case is noT enTiTled To s ek producTion of answer-scripts or revaluafion. The pe‘i'iTioner has noT pleaded any mala fides or Tampering wiTh The answering sheeTs. Even The previous record of The peTiTioner x i al i ,e Xl-HC~78 ‘GWW’W'WV mmqi$ . ............... ........ W200, ma tats (W) mimrrm ’ mmam , 3mm 111% amt WW#WW aiwmst r~8f shows fha‘i shé‘inas an average ‘ udem and fherefore, 1'he performance of fhe petitioner-in ali fhe fhre 34‘ subjects namely Physics, Chemis‘fry & Biology was found ‘i'o be very poor, as is evidem' from fhe numbers merifioned in fhe'eariier part of this order. The fac‘r ihaf she may get a ' few more marks, on revaluatiov , is noi' a ground for. summoning 'rhe answer-scripts and order for re-valuafion. In view of The above, I 1 pe‘ri‘rioner has no? been able 1 imerference of fhis Court T dismissed and i~r is dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Roshan/- ,,/ I, we: , 1m. of the considered opinion That The 'o 'make out an excepfionai case for 1erefore, fhe pefifion is liable 1'0 be