Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pranav Birla A Minor Through His Father ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Its ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158
1 WP-20490-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 9 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 20490 of 2024
PRANAV BIRLA A MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER AND
GUARDIAN MAHESH BIRLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner by Mr. Manuraj Singh - Advocate.
Respondent - Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education by Ms.
Chitralekha Hardia - Advocate.
Mr. Jyoti Bhaskar W/o N.K. Bhaskar, Divisional Officer, Board of
Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is also present in person.
ORDER
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking revaluation of his answer books of Subject English, Physics and Hindi, on account of incorrect checking of the questions, which has resulted in award of less marks to him.
2. While issuing notices of this petition on 25.07.2024, the scope of this petition was confined to English subject only.
3. The petitioner being a student of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2024 appeared in the subject of English and secured 86 marks out of 100 marks. In the examination, he secured total 373 marks Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158 2 WP-20490-2024 out of 500 marks. He is short by two marks to secure 75% to make him eligible to appear in Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) to secure admission in Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and other institutions.
4. The petitioner obtained his answer book for English subject and came to know that various answers to the questions were wrongly valued by the Valuer and he was awarded zero (0) marks, whereas he had answered the questions correctly. He submitted an application for reevaluation, but the same has been turned down due to non-availability of provisions in Regulations hence, has preferred the present petition.
5. An advance copy of this petition was served upon the learned counsel appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and a direction was issued to produce the answer sheet and the model answer for the English subject.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent by relying upon the Board of Secondary Education (Madhya Pradesh) Regulations, 1965 has submitted that any candidate who has appeared in Class XII Examination may apply to the Secretary for verification whether the candidate's answer in particular subject has been examined and there has been no mistake in totaling of the marks in that subject, but not for revaluation of the answers. Since there is no such provision, his application for revaluation has not been considered. Reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by this Court in Neha Indurkhya v. Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal , (2003) 3 M.P.L.J. 368 to submit that revaluation is not permissible under the Rules and Regulations.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158 3 WP-20490-2024
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been held by this Court in Shivam Maheshwari v. Board of Secondary Education, Writ Petition No.3835 of 2017 , (Indore Bench ) decided on 17.07.2017 and Sharinath Das Gupta v. Board of Secondary Education, 2018 (3) MPLJ 76, that re-evaluation is permissible only in extraordinary cases.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In Sharinath Das Gupta (supra), it has been held by this Court, as under: -
"8. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the re-checking of answer No.6 of subject mathematics as well as revaluation of answer of Hindi subject. In one of the case of Pranshu Indurkhyav Vs. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2005 (2) MPLJ 315 = 2005 (2) MPHT 95, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:
"8. On applying the said principles, we are clear that the appellant in this case is not entitled to seek production of answer-scripts or revaluation. The appellant has not made out any malafides or tampering. The appellant has passed with an average 76% marks. The fact that he may get a few more marks, on revaluation, is not a ground for summoning the answer script and order re- valuation. Where the student has already secured a high percentage of marks, there is no case for 'gross negligence resulting in injustice'. Courts should not be swayed by sympathy and rhetoric in such matters. As observed by the Supreme Court 'pragmatism' and not 'idealism' should be the basis for interference in such matters."
9. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v/s Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158 4 WP-20490-2024 in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v/s Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, AIR 2004 SC 4116 , the Apex Court has held that under the relevant rules, when there is no provision then a candidate may not be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer-book. The similar view has been taken by the Apex Court again in the case of Board of Secondary Education v/s D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603.
10. It is not in dispute that the fate of the students depends upon the action of the teachers who evaluate his/her answer- book. In the case of Prem Ratan Agrawal v/s Board of Secondary Education, 2002 (2) MPLJ 588 = 2002 (2) MPHT 570; Board of Secondary Education v/s Rajeev Gupta, L.P.A. No.295 of 2001 decided on 26.02.2004 this Court has held that as general rule the Court has no power to order for revaluation of the answer-sheet since the rule do not provide for revaluation, however, in extra ordinary case where student is bright and when injustice have been done, then in such cases revaluation of marks can be done specially in the case of Mathematics and Science. It is open to the Court to have a look at the answer sheet and compared with the model paper and if there are gross discrepancies in the answer book, then it is always open to the Court to call expert valuer of subject to re- evaluate the marks in the Court itself. The aforesaid view has been followed in the case of Priyanka Pandey v/s Secretary Board of Secondary Education, 2007 MPLJ Online 19 = AIR 2007 MP 235 . The apex Court in the case of Sahiti v/s DR. NTR University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599 has held that re-evaluation of the answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal but permissible in certain cases depending on its facts and circumstances.
11. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court passed in the Case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, it has been held that even if the statutory rules or regulations governing the examination does not permit the revaluation of scrutiny of marks, the Court may permit revaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly that material error has been committed. Para 30 is reproduced 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 Regulation Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158 5 WP-20490-2024 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 Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an 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 rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
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 a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
12. In view of the above, it is clear that in extraordinary circumstances this Court has a power to direct the Board to reevaluate the answer-book." Thus, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court, it is clear that in extraordinary circumstances, this Court has the power to direct the Board to reevaluate the answer book.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that for Question No.6 (vi), the petitioner had given the answer to be "that". In the Model Answer produced by the respondents themselves, the answer to the said question has been stated to be "that". When the answer sheet of the petitioner is perused, it is seen that the answer given by him was "that"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158 6 WP-20490-2024 alone. Likewise, for Question No.9 (B) (i), the correct answer as per the Model Answer of the respondents was "on his nose". The answer which has been given by the petitioner is "on his nose", which as per the Model Answer is the correct answer. However, a perusal of the answer sheet of the petitioner reveals that for both the aforesaid answers, the petitioner has not been given any marks and the answer has been crossed out and he has been given zero '0' marks. The said evaluation of the answer given by the petitioner is apparently incorrect, in view of the Model Answers, as prescribed by the respondent themselves.
11. This Court in Sharinath Das Gupta (supra) has further held, as under: -
"19. Now a days, the competition is very tough and hard where the difference of one mark changes the position of the student in the merit list drastically. By short of one mark, the candidate may not get admission in the desire field, subject or in college. It is not a mere case of one mark, but due to shortfall of one mark may be due to wrong valuation, the entire future of the meritorious candidate may suffer.
20. It is settled law that in every case, the Court may not exercise the power to call the valuer and increase the marks, but when mistake is obvious and apparent and increase of marks substantially changes the result and the future of a meritorious candidate is concerned, then the Courts can exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
12. As discussed above, the petitioner has correctly answered Questions No.6 (i) and 9 (B) (i) and he is a meritorious student, who has secured 86 marks out of 100 in the said subject (373 out of 500 marks, overall), therefore, he deserves two (2) more marks in English subject.
13. Hence, the petition is allowed. Madhya Pradesh Board of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26158 7 WP-20490-2024 Secondary Education, Bhopal is directed to increase two (2) marks in English subject of the petitioner and to reissue the mark sheet to him.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE rcp Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 12-09-2024 16:37:16