WP(C) 6129/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati University. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by th e evaluation of her answerscript in Paper III i.e., Methodology of Educational Research and Educational Statistics of the M.Ed Examination 2006 held in the mon th of January, 2007. Her allotted Roll Number was 44 of N.I.F.T.E. 3. Considering the order proposed to be passed it is unnecessary to go into the factual details. Suffice it to mention that after completing the aforementioned course the petitioner took her first plunge in the year 2005 to c lear the examination, but was unsuccessful. According to her she had fared well in the M.Ed Examination 2006 held in the month of January, 2007. In the paper i n question she expected to score 60%. In the results that were declared, the pet itioner was shown to have failed in the same paper, having scored only 31 the pa ss marks being 35. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for re-examina tion of the answerscript. According to her though at some point of time the aut horities of the University posed to provide her with an opportunity to view her answerscript, the same eventually did not materialize. 4. Mr. Sarma has produced before the Court the petitioner’s answers cript in Paper III in original. A bare perusal of the answerscript demonstrates that the petitio ner has scored 31 marks in Paper III, the breakup of marks being - 18(eighteen) in the First Half and 13(thirteen) in the Second Half thereof. The petitioner w ho is personally present in Court was accorded an opportunity of seeing the answ erscript. 5. Mr. Biswas on instructions has submitted that the marks awarded t o the petitioner’s answer to question no. 1 of the first half of the Paper III has not been accorded in the manner as contemplated. The question is quoted h erein below : Define Educational Research (DER). Discuss its need and importance. How does E ducational Research differ from other science research ? 4+6+6 = 16 6. The examiner awarded 6(six) marks in all to the petitioner witho ut indicating a breakup of the marks for the three components of the question. In addition thereto it had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the e valuation has not been appropriate requiring a re-appreciation of the answer scr ipt. 7. Mr. Sharma has contended that the evaluation has been properly m ade and the mere omission to disclose the breakup of the marks does not per-se r ender the examination of the petitioner’s answerscript faulty, requiring re-eva luation. 8. The arguments noticed hereinabove are pleadings compliant. True it is that this Court in response to a request for re-evaluation of an answerscrip t in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has t o be restrained and circumspect. If however the materials on records attest genu ine grievance of the candidate concerned, necessary remedial measures may have t o be adopted in a particular case. 9. A plain reading of the question extracted hereinabove to which the p etitioner has offered her answer comprises of 3 segments, each carrying differen t marks. It was therefore expected that while evaluating the same, the examiner would separately award marks with regard to the said segments. This visibly has not been done. This leaves a room of doubt in the mind of the petitioner that h er answer has not been appropriately analysed and appraised. As noticed hereinab ove the margin of marks secured and the pass mark is only 4. 10. On a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and in view of the above revelations, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of tr ansparency in the matter of evaluation of the answerscript of the petitioner, a direction for re-examination of her answerscript in Paper III ought to be issued . 11. Mr. Sarma on instruction as required by this Court has submitted wi thout prejudice to the stand of the University that a direction may be issued t o the Head of the Education Department, Guwahati University, if so desired, to assign the task of reevaluation of the petitioner’s answerscript to any other le cturer of the said department. 12. In view of the above determination, it is hereby directed that H ead of the Education Department, Guwahati University would forthwith arrange for the re-examination of the petitioner’s answerscript in Paper III of the M.Ed Ex amination 2006 by any other lecturer of the said department on merits. As the next examination in the said course is scheduled to be held on 5-1-2008, the exercise as ordered hereinabove should be completed lates t by 4-1-2008 and the result thereof be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. It is made clear that this order would not stand as a precedent as it has been pas sed considering the unique features of the instant case. 13. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Sharma, learned Standi ng Counsel, Guwahati University so as to enable the authorities concerned to do the needful. The answer script alongwith the accompanying documents are hereby r eturned to Mr. Sharma. 14. The writ petition is thus allowed. No costs.