--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 7514 / 2010 YASHWANT KHEDE Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BHOPAL * * * * * O R D E R ( 19/4/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition seeking revaluation of the answer books in respect of Higher Secondary Certificate Examination, 2009 (10+2). The contention of the petitioner is that he is a meritorious candidate and has cleared High School Certificate Examination, 2007 with distinction in all subjects. The petitioner has further stated that he has later on appeared in 12th Standard Examination in the year 2009. However, he was granted distinction in 4 subjects excluding English. The contention of the petitioner is that he has done extremely well in 12th Standard Examination and the respondents have not valued his answer books properly and therefore he has not been able to obtain his position in the --- 2 --- merit list prepared by the Board. Petitioner has further stated that immediately after the examination he has submitted an application for retotalling and the respondent Board vide letter dt. 16/6/09 has informed the petitioner that there is no change after retotalling the answer books. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter he has submitted an application for revaluation of the answer books and he has been informed on 24/11/09 that there is no provision for revaluation of the answer books. The petitioner has further stated that various representations were preferred by him in the matter and he was again informed on 6/2/10 that there is no provision for revaluation and therefore left with no other choice he has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 30/6/10 seeking revaluation. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondent Board is that there is no provision for revaluation of answer books under the Regulation of Board of Secondary Education and Regulation 119 provides only for scrutiny of marks. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner though has appeared in the year 2009 has --- 3 --- approached this Court after lapse of about more than a year and the Board prior to filing of the present writ petition on 23/1/10 has taken a decision to destroy the answer books after 120 days of the declaration of the result. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief of whatsoever kind and merely because he is expecting more marks and he has not received marks as per his expectation, cannot claim for revaluation in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Priyanka Pandey Vs. Board of Secondary Education, MP and another reported in (AIR 2007 MP 235) and the learned counsel for the respondent Board has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the --- 4 --- petitioner has qualified 10th Standard Examination from Board of Secondary Education, MP with distinction in all subjects. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has qualified Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (12th) again from the Board of Secondary Education, MP Bhopal with distinction in 4 subjects excluding English. The mark sheet enclosed as (Annexure P/5) is dated 28/4/09 and the petitioner thereafter has submitted an application for retotalling as provided under Regulation 119 of the Regulations. Vide letter dt. 16/6/09 the petitioner was informed that there is no change in respect of retotalling of marks obtained by him and thereafter the petitioner again submitted an application for revaluation. The same was turned down by the Board on 25/11/09 and the petitioner thereafter kept on representing in the matter. The present writ petition has been filed only on 30/6/10 ie., after a lapse of more than a year. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka Pandey Vs. Board of Secondary Education, MP and another (supra), in para 3 has held as under : 3. Questioning the correctness of the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. Anil --- 5 --- Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant that though there is no provision for revaluation of the answer scripts but in certain cases revaluation can be directed. He has commended us to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of M.P. and others, AIR 2005 MP 152. In the aforesaid case, R. V. Raveendran, CJ (as his Lordship then was) after scanning the anatomy of the rule and the decisions in the field culled out the principles as under :- "7. The principles in regard to revaluation may therefore be summarised thus :- (a) A student has no right to seek revaluation of an answer script unless the rules governing the examination specifically provide the revaluation. A provision for 'scrutiny' or 'retotalling' of marks or 'rechecking the results' in the Rules does not entitle a student to seek revaluation. (b) Where the rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court will not normally direct the production of the answer scripts for its scrutiny or order revaluation. But in rare and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence, the Court may direct revaluation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (c) Ascertainment of mala fides and tampering depends on facts of the case and for that purpose, if necessary, the answer script may be summoned. (d) Ascertainment of "gross negligence resulting in injustice" is a more difficult exercise. A student who has consistently secured very high marks in a subject in the last few years examinations, is shown to have failed in such subject, the Court may consider it to be prima facie evidence of such negligence and call for the answer scripts. (The mere fact that a student --- 6 --- feels that he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannot be ground to call for answer scripts). On securing the answer script, the Court may examine it or take the assistance of a qualified teacher to examine it. If the Court finds any gross negligence resulting in injustice which shocks its judicial conscience it may direct revaluation. (e) But change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot be a ground for revaluation. Different examiners may evaluate the same answers differently resulting in lesser or higher marks being awarded. Revaluation is not to be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different. In traditional examinations where the purpose is to test the knowledge, grammar, logic or reasoning, the perceptions about the answers may vary from examiner to examiner. (Of course where the examination is of objective type, where the student is merely to mark 'yes' or 'no', or choose one of the multiple answers, there cannot be any difference in valuation). (f) While fairness in examinations is impliedly assured by the Board, exactness in valuation in individual cases can neither be assured nor be claimed. Certain margin of human error, oversight, and perceptional difference is part of the valuation system, where thousands or lacs of answer scripts are evaluated by hundreds or thousands of evaluators. Therefore, even where the Court secures the answer script and examines it or gets it examined by an independent teachers, revaluation should not be ordered merely because there is some difference in valuation or because one or two answers have not been valued or have been wrongly valued. To repeat, mala fides tampering or gross negligence (and not small or negligible errors or perceptional changes) is --- 7 --- a condition precedent for ordering revaluation." In the present case, no material has been brought on record which establish malafides or tampering in respect of the answer books nor any material has been brought on record to establishes that injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence warranting a revaluation. Merely because the petitioner was expecting more marks than what he has received does not mean that the answer books have not been valued properly and therefore keeping in view the parameters as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, no case for directing a revaluation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is made out. The apex court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (supra) in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 has held as under: 11. The relevant Regulations 6 (i) and 6 (ii) are reproduced below: “6(i) No candidate shall be credited with any marks in any paper unless he obtains at least 45% in that paper, --- 8 --- except Hindi Language paper (Paper V) in which candidate should obtain at least 33% marks. (ii) No candidate would be considered to have qualified the written test unless he obtains 50% marks in aggregate in all papers and at least 33% marks in Language paper i.e. Hindi in Devnagri script.” 12. The advertisement clarified as under: “Revaluation or rechecking of the answer books (scripts) is not permissible nor the Commission enters into correspondence in this behalf.” 13. Therefore, there is no dispute so far as the process of evaluation of the answer sheets is concerned under the Regulations, 2005. The Regulations do not contain any provision for revaluation. Respondent 1 admittedly could not secure qualifying marks in one paper as required therein. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, three basic questions arise for consideration of this Court: (i) As to whether it is permissible for the court to take the task of examiner /Selection Board upon itself and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question papers and evaluation thereof ? (ii) Whether the court has the power to pass a general order restraining the persons aggrieved to approach the --- 9 --- court by filing a writ petition on any ground and depriving them of their constitutional rights to approach the court, particularly, when some other candidates had secured the same marks i.e. 89 and stood disqualified for being called for interview but could not approach the court? (iii) Whether in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation, the court could direct for revaluation? 19. In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. the Constitution Bench of this Court while considering the case for grant of permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the Transport Authority, but issuing the direction for grant of permits was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdiction. In the aforesaid case, there was no provision for revaluation of answer books and in similar circumstances the apex court has held that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets. In the present case, the Regulation governing the field ie., Regulation 119 reads as under : Regulation. - 119 – A candidate who has appeared at an examination of the Board may apply to the secretary for --- 10 --- the scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result in accordance with the rules framed by the Board. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision of law as there is no provision for revaluation nor the petitioner has been able to make out a case for revaluation, the question of directing revaluation of the answer books in question does not arise. Resultantly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR