WP(C) 4101/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (ORAL) Heard Mr. P Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also h eard Mr. T Chutia, learned Standing counsel, Board of Secondary Education Assam, (SEBA for short) for the respondents. Considering the matter in its entirety and as agreed to by the learned c ounsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for issuing a writ of manda mus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to re-examine and re-evalu ate the answer scripts of General Mathematics, Advanced Mathematics and Social S cience of Ms. Nabanita Chakraborty, daughter of the petitioner. Petitioner’s cas e in brief is that he is a Lecturer of Economics in Nalbari College. His daughte r Ms. Nabanita Chakraborty possesses a brilliant academic career all throughout. She appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate (’HSLC’ for short) examinat ion in the year 2011 from the Sankardev Vidya Niketan, Nalbari. The above examin ation was conducted by the respondent No.3 herein. The examination was held in F ebruary-March, 2011. Her Roll was B11-651 and No. was 0280. Her subjects were As samese, English, General Science, General Mathematics, Social Science and Advanc ed Mathematics. She had secured 95.3% in the test examination in entire Nalbari district held in November-December, 2010. The result of HSLC (Regular) 2011 exam ination was declared on 27.05.2011 and she passed the examination in 1st Divisio n with distinction. She secured 521 marks out of total marks of 600 against thos e subjects, she also got letter marks in all the subjects and was placed at Grad e ’A’ by the SEBA authority. However, she was not satisfied with the marks allot ted to her for the subjects viz., General Mathematics, Advanced Mathematics and Social Science. Being not satisfied with the marks so allotted to her, on 04.06. 2011, she submitted an application before the authority for allowing her to re-e xamine the answer scripts in respect of the abovementioned three subjects. She h ad also duly deposited the requisite fees for re-examination of the answer scrip ts. However, till third week of July, 2011, she did not receive any communicatio n from the authority regarding her prayer for re-examination. Ultimately on 20.0 7.2011, the petitioner came across the result of re-examination 2011 by responde nt No.3 which was released in its website. After downloading the same, it was fo und that there was no change of marks in respect of the aforesaid 3(three) subje cts against which claim for re-examination was made. Altogether 13 (thirteen) ca ndidates from Nalbari Centre submitted their claim for re-examination of answer scripts for different subjects but none of them were able to get their revised m arks in the process of re-examination of their answer scripts. As the prayer for re-examination of the above three subjects has not been acceded to by the respo ndent authority, being aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed with t he aforesaid prayer. Mr. Chutia, learned Standing counsel, SEBA has submitted that a detailed affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 con tending, inter alia, that the scripts of the candidate had been re-examined as p er prescribed Rules of the Board. Hence the allegation made that the answer scri pts submitted by the petitioner’s daughter have not been re-examined by the auth ority is not correct. Relevant paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition are qu oted hereinbelow: 7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9 to the writ pe tition, the deponent states that from the statement of the petitioner, it appear s that the petitioner has confused about the Re-examination of answer scripts. A s per rules of the Board, Re-examination does not mean Re-evaluation of scripts. The Re-examination shall consist of re-totaling of marks awarded by the examine r and/or assessment of answer(s) which has/have been left out unevaluated and/or correction of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. If such mistakes are d etected then only the re-examiner can mark it. When the scripts are properly che cked and marked by the re-examiner and no mistake is committed at any stage, in such cases NO CHANGES (NC) of marks are reported in the results so published. Th e answer scripts of the daughter of the petitioner are thoroughly re-examined as per rule of the Board and the result is published accordingly. Hence the allega tion that the scripts have not been re-examined and the marks have been quoted f rom the photocopy of the mark sheet attached, are false and baseless. 8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 10 to the writ pe tition the deponent denies that Re-examination mean Re-evaluation of scripts. Th e Re-evaluation of scripts is not admissible as per rules of the Board. The scri pts of the candidate had been re-examined as per prescribed rules of the Board. 9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 & 14 to the writ petition the Deponent says that the marking system is not individual . It is equal and same to all the candidates. There is no different marking syst em has been applied for the daughter of the petitioner. There is no such irregul arity and anomaly on the part of the Board in case of re-examination of scripts of the daughter of the petitioner. The scripts of the daughter of the petitioner have been properly re-examined and there is no anomaly in the process of re-exa mination. Rather the Board on receipt of the petition of this case through the B oard’s Standing Counsel has again checked the scripts of the candidate and found no discrepancy in the answer scripts. 10. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 15 to the writ p etition the deponent denies the same and says that if all question is properly m arked and no mistakes are detected in calculation of marks or entry of marks, th en the re-examiners cannot add any additional marks to the already evaluated que stions as a result of which majority of results in re-examination remains unchan ged. In this connection, the Deponent reiterates and affirms the statement made in paragraph 7 of this affidavit. In view of the stand taken by the authority in their counter affidavit, Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a re cent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Educati on and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 (arising out of SLP(C) No.7526/2009), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court directin g the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer bo oks, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the Right to Informati on act, 2005 (’RTI Act’ for short) and the safeguards and conditions subject to which ’information’ should be furnished. Further, while answering the question as to whether the examinees are entitled to inspect their evaluated answer books or take certified copies thereof, it was held that as the right claimed by the students in Aditya (supra) was not with reference to the Rules and Bye Laws of e xamining bodies but under the RTI Act which enables and entitles them to have ac cess as ’Information’ and inspect them and take certified copies thereof, inasmu ch as, Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provision of the said Act wil l have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the Bye Laws/Rules of the examining bodies i n regard to examinees. In view of the decision in Aditya (supra), it is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner would file an application before the respondent No.3 under the relevant provision of RTI A ct praying for re-examination of answer scripts. In reply to the submission so made by learned counsel for the petitioner , Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA has fairly submitted that as and wh en the petitioner files such application, the authority would do the needful as provided under the law. Considered the submissions so made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the materials on record and the decision rendered by the S upreme Court in Aditya (supra). Taking into account the matter in its entirety, the petitioner is directed to file an application before respondent No.3 under a ppropriate provision of RTI Act stating his grievance therein alongwith a copy o f this order and as soon as the said application is filed, the authority would d o the needful at the earliest, not later than 2 (two) weeks from the date of rec eipt of the application so filed by the petitioner. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost s.