Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhrajyoti De & Another vs Central Board on 16 April, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1 Sn 16.4.19 W.P. 2248(W) of 2018 24 SUBHRAJYOTI DE & ANOTHER VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS.
Mr. Shuvro Prokash Lahiri ..for the petitioners Mr. U.S. Menon Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty ..for the CBSE The petitioner appeared in the All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 2017 held by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner got 13 marks in Mathematics. Having failed in Mathematics, the petitioner thereafter appeared at the compartmental examination held around July 2017. Again, the petitioner got 14 marks in Mathematics. The petitioner applied for verification as per guidelines provided by the said Board and the result of the petitioner in the relevant subject was unchanged. No mistake was found.
Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to apply "on line" for supply of answer scripts in terms of memorandum dated August 5, 2016. According to the petitioner, no 2 answer script could not be obtained on line. Thereafter the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The answer script was supplied to the petitioner along with the model answer key followed by the Board for correction of the answer scripts.
This writ petition has been filed on two main grounds. First, that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to challenge the evaluation in the compartmental examination in Mathematics on the ground that the petitioner had received the answer script belatedly under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that the subsequent notification dated May 29, 2016 by which the process of revaluation was done away with on and from 2017 did not apply to the students who took compartmental examination but was restricted to regular students.
Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the delay in obtaining the answer script was caused due to non supply of the answer script "on line" by 3 the Board and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for such delay. He further submits that the notification dated August 5, 2016 will be applicable in case of the petitioner and as such revaluation should be permitted. His specific contention is that the decision of the Board to do away with the provision for re-evaluation with effect from 2017 was taken prior to issuance of the notification dated August 5, 2016 which meant that the decision of the Board to do away of re-evaluation with effect from 2017 applied only for regular examination and not compartmental examination.
Mr. Menon, learned Advocate for the Central Board of Secondary Education submits that the notification dated August 5, 2016 provides for revaluation of answer script of students who took the compartmental examination, in 2016, as categorically stated in the notice itself. He further points out that the petitioner sat in the compartmental examination in July 2017, and as such he 4 could not take advantage of the notification which is titled "Senior School Certificate(Class-XI) Compatt. Examination, 2016". Mr. Memon further submits that when the rules did not provide for re-evaluation of answer scripts then according to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by this Court, the Court cannot direct re-evaluation of the answer scripts on the basis of sympathy. Mr. Memon further contends that the petitioner also has not been able to point out any error or irregularity in the evaluation. He prays that the matter should be dismissed.
I agree with the contention of Mr. Memon.
This Court sitting in judicial review cannot direct the examining authority to go against their rule and re-evaluate the answer script in the absence of any pleading in this writ application pointing out errors or irregularities in the evaluation process. 5 The Hon'ble Apex Court very frequently deprecated such practice of High Courts in issuing orders upon the examining authorities to re-evaluate and/or produce answer script contrary to the rules.
As such, no directions can be passed in this writ application.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of Ran Vijay Singh & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC page 357 has clarified the position. The relevant portion is quoted below:-
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are;
30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulations governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulations governing an examination does not permit revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.6
30.3 The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4 The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
The above mentioned judgement clearly lays down the law on the subject. It is stated in paragraph 30.2 that the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization" and only in rare or exceptional case that a material error has been committed.
In this writ application, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that this was an exceptional case in which material errors had been committed by the examiner while correcting or evaluating the answer script of the compartmental examination taken by the petitioner.
This writ petition fails.
7However, if the petitioner can demonstrate by making proper application before the authority about the existence of any exceptional situation as indicated above which may be made call for re-evaluation then the authorities may consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law by taking into account the model answers. If it is found that evaluation was correct the petitioner will be informed about the same. If it is found that the evaluation is incorrect then necessary steps should be taken for rectification of the mistake.
The above exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioner in the prescribed format, if any, along with the fees payable and any other compliance if required.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of 8 this order be given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for.
(Shampa Sarkar,J.) 9 10