@D ® C I g‘wJV IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 86 2/IOF 2004 Ku. Meena Verma, D/o. Khorbahara Ram Verma, Aged aboul, 19 years, R/o. C/o. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Shanti Vihar Colony, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS Board of Secondary Education, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Through its Secretary. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE, 2zo/2é7 OE THE CONSTITUTION\ OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT . ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. PETITIONER ##‘f ‘ 4W 2/ HIGH C§URT OF CHHATTISGARH, §ILASI3UR Writ Petition No.3624 of 2004 Kum. Msena Vérma Versus Board Of Sccondamr Education Chhattisgarh, Raipur ix‘ “i POST FOR ORDER OWI/‘i‘li’OOd, /\ \ ‘ Sdl— i W L.c.BHAD0° 1 ‘ Judge ‘ . ,7 H!GH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHI-IATTISGARH {BILASPURI Writ Petition No. 3624 of 2004 Ku‘ Meena Verma V€ISUS Beard of Stcondary Education Chhattisgarh, Raipur Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Advocate for respondent-Board‘ ‘1 0 R D E R M11" {Passod on 2g W; November 2004) As Eer L.C. Bhadoo J. 1. Ku. Meena Vcrma, the pctitionsr hersin, appsarcd in tho Highar i Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2004 (Class 12th) under the R011 Number 2141732} from Sarvahit Kalim Higher Secondary School, Rawaah (Baloda Bazar), Distu'ctv Raiyur Examination Canton When the result of tho potiooncr was dcclarcd, shc was shocked to know that in tho written examination of Physics subject out of 75 marks only 14 marks were awarded to her. Accordingly she applied for re—totalh'ng and rechecking but the respondent-Board informed the petitioner that ”there ig no change in the result. Being not satiefxed with the marks awanied to her and fhe result of rechecking and revaluation, the petitioner has preferrezi this writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of decision of The respondent— Board. '2. The case of the petitioner is that she attempted all the qrlestions in the question—papers of all the subjects as per instruction contained therein to the best of her satisfaction and was very 1 hopéful of getting fairly good marks in all subject As per The rssult declamd by the respondent-Board she secured 78 marks 1‘11 Hindi (Special), 75 marks ill English (General), 91 marks in Mathematics. 54 marks 1'11 Chemistrv but onlv 14 marks were awarded to the petitioner in Physics subject. Further case of the petitioner is that she has always been a brilliant student. In the 10th Class Board Examinau'on she seemed 407 marks out of 500 marks and ill Class 11th in Physics subject she secured 54 marks out of 70 marks. Looldng to the past educational record of the petitioner as also the marks secured by her in other subjects and looking to the fact that very less marks were awarded to her in Physics subject, notice was issued to the respondent] Board. Mr. HB. Agrawal, Advocate appeared on behalf of Board who was directed to produce answer sheets of the petitioner and to tile return. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondentjBoard, however on the date of hearing i.e. 23. 1 1.2004 with all fairness Shri E. Lakra, Deputy Secretary 0f the Board of Secondary Educau'on, Raipur and Shri RK. Sondhiya, Assistant Grade—1 of the Board appeared alongwith answer sheet of the peh'tioner whose roll number was 21417321 and also the answer sheet of other student namely Sheshnarayan Tikariha whose roll number was 21417328, learned Counsel for the respondent— Board came out with a very surprising and conscious shocking answer that at the Examination: Center some mischief was played by some person/persons who were supervising and LO Ul ea cancemad with the. examination at the Exammation Center — Salvahit Karim Higher Secandary School, Rawaan (Baloda Bazar} , District— Raipur. 6. He submitted that the R011 Number of Petitioner Ku. Meena, Verma was 21417321 Whereas R011 Numher of one Shri Sheshxxarayan Tikmiha was 21417328. While comparing t11€ answar sheats of Physics subjcct of abova two students’ it has 306611 noticed that soma one had changed 1116 r011 number of the ‘ pstiticner 0n ths emSwer sheet$ by c011vsrting t11€ East digit ‘1’ intO ‘8’) ther€by the marks obtained by the petitioner wa‘e cotmtéd against tha r011 numbcr 21417328, which was allottcd To 0116 Shri Shesh Narayan Tikaria; aha marks obtamed by him under r011 number 21417328 werg counted against. the name 0f the petitioner as the last digit “8" of said r011 number was also converted into ‘1’, Hf:— also pmduccd both miginal answer sheets for perusal of the Court. 7. A bare. perusal of the answer Sheets of the getitiener dealiy shows that the last digit of her r011 number i.e. ‘1’ was converted into ‘8’ and-thereby the petitioner’s answer sheet was shown to be the answer sheet of the student having roll number 21417328, who is one Shri Shesh Naravan Tikaria; and 13V converting the last digit of roll number of said Shri Shesh Naravan Tikaria Le. ‘8’ into ‘ 1 3 the said answer sheet. was shown to be of the petitioner; and, thereby by committing this forgery 14 marks secured by Shri Shesh Narayan Tikaria were entered into the mark sheet of the petitioner, Whereas 65 marks secored by the petitioner were entered in the mark sheet of Shn’ Shesh Narayan Tikaria. This View further finds support fmm the fact as infomed by Shri E. Lakra, Deyuiy Secmtmy ihat Shri Sheslmarayan Tikan'ha was d€c1axed eligibls for supplementary in Mathematics, only after he. was declared pass 3‘11 Physics subject due to the mampulatian, but he cculd not clear Mathematics paper even in sugaplementary exam, whereas, in supplementary exam of Physics the petitioner secured 54 marks out of 75 marks. This incident shows that as to What extent things can be manipulated. This incident is an eye-opener fer everyone who are responsible for conducting the examixiau'on. As per the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent—Board there is no system of revaluation of the answer sheets, and only rechecking and totalling of marks is permitted. When such a stringent system is adopted then heavy responsibility lies on the Respondent-Board to ensure that the examination is conducted in all fairness with a perfect system so that the interest of the students should not be harmedfclamaged. To curb such manipulation and in order to maintain sanctity of the examination, and transparency in the examination system, it is iinperative and high time that the Board should think to introduce a system that at—least in cases Where any of the students is not. satisfied by the marks avéarded to him/ her then on his] her request the original answer sheets are shown to tilat student and for that pmpose the Board can devise a system] scheme under which the Bfoard can ask such desirous student to deposit particular amount; and in case no change is found in the marks or no mistake is detected, then the amount should be forfeiteel by the Board; m othm‘ cases whare mistake is detEcted and thereby some changs is required in the marks then said amount. of the candidate must be refunded. Even othenviee, looking to the examination system where number of persons are involved right from the examination center till evaluation proceSS, things can be mamipulated at any stage in any form. Therefore, in order to maintain transparency irr The examiuarion system and to commll check marripulation and to satisfy the students/candidates the Board must devise a system for showing the answer sheets to the students/ candidates on his] her request. Otherwise such manipulation/irregularities are bound to increase which may not only affect career of a student but also lose the confidence of student in the examination and evaluation system. Not only this if such manipulation and irregularities are not controlled at this stage, nunlber of students are bound to fail in the trap of miscreants to gain'benent by such manipulations. Therefore it is high time that in the name of secrecy such manipulations should not be allowed to take place. 10. The respondent-Board should also consider that where there are complaints of mass-copying, such manipulations or other irregularities and such incidents have taken place at particular examination centers, then they should exclude such schools from the list of the examination centers, apart from other action t against the person involved and also the institution. \k r 11. In this case for no fault of the petitioner her one-year has been (spoiled on account of mismanagement on the part of the @ respondant—Board aml that too 0116 can mlderstaxld uiider What kmd of ténsion/turmoil the petitioner remained during this pem'od and sufferec1 during this period. 12. In the result the petition of the pefitioner is allowed with cost. The reepondent-Board is directed to suitably correct the mark sheet of the petitioner and that of Shri Shesh Narayail Tikal‘ia and supply the same to them at the earliest, In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent—Board is directed to pay cost of Rs. 50001 — (Rupees Five Thousand) to the petitioner Within a period of one month from today. At the same time the Respondent-Board is directed to institute the fact finding euquiry 1'11 order to identify the persons who were involved in this manipulation/forgery, which should be entrusted to some senior officer of the respondent-Board who shall enquire iiito the matter and fix responsibility on the person] persons responsible for this forgery i.e. for change of last digit of the r011 numbers of the petitioner and Shri Shesh Narayan Tikariha. The report be submitted to this Court by 23$ December, 2004 for further action in accordance with law. List the petition for consideration of the enquiry rephrt and order on 231d December, 2004, In View of the above order LA. N0‘8956/ 2004 stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Education Department for necessary action in the i Thakur matter. Cerh'iied copy as per Rules. t v Sdl- ‘ L.c.BHADOO Judge