Tripura High Court
Smt. Sushma Roy vs The State Of Tripura on 10 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 33
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P(C) No. 96/2018
Smt. Sushma Roy, D/o. Shri Sanjib Kr. Roy, R/o. Dhaleshwar,
P.O-Dhaleshwar, PS-East Agartala, Pin-799007, Agartala, District-
West Tripura.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary,
Department of School Education, Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Complex, P.O-Secretariat, Pin-799010, Agartala, West
Tripura.
2. The Director, Directorate of Secondary Education,
Government of Tripura, Agartala, Tripura West, P.O-Agartala.
3. The Tripura Board of Secondary Education, represented by
it's Secretary, Pandit Nehru Complex, Gorkha Basti, P.O-Agartala,
P.S-New Capital Complex, Dist. West Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. RKP Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Paramartha Datta, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI Order 10/5/2018 By this instant petition, the petitioner has approached this court who is a student had appeared in High Secondary (+2 Stage) Examination, 2017 held by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education but could not secure the minimum qualifying marks in two papers i.e. Physics and Chemistry.
2. In the Mark Sheet (No.000991) issued to her (Annexure-1), she scored 12 and 14 marks in the respective papers and failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks and in the remarks column it was mentioned that she had compartmental Page 2 of 5 in paper Phys., Chem. & Maths. with a further note eligible to appear in two subjects. Subsequently, she applied for revaluation and in both subjects i.e. Physics and Chemistry she was slightly improved. In Physics, originally she scored 12 marks and after evaluation she secured 13 marks and at the same time, in the subject Chemistry, she actually scored 14 and after evaluation she secured 15 marks but still her final status would be the same and the fresh Mark Sheet No.060010 issued to her after evaluation, Annexure-3 of Higher Secondary (+2 Stage) Examination, 2017 in a remarks column which was mentioned that compartmental in Phys. Chem., Maths., eligible to appear in any two subjects.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she entitled for grace marks in terms of so called Regulation which has been fixed by the Examination Committee framed in exercise of the power u/Sec.17(c) of the Tripura Board of Secondary Education Act, 1973. This court has its own reservation as to whether such bye-
laws can be framed by the Examination Committee u/Sec. 17(c) of the Act, 1973. I leave it open to examine in other appropriate proceedings.
4. After counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, it has been admitted by the board that she is entitled for grace marks. For ready reference para-12 of the counter affidavit is quoted hereunder:
"12. That, as to the contents of para 8(A) of the instant writ petition the answering respondent submits that--Page 3 of 5
It is an amended writ petition, the amendment being addition of a new para numbered as 8(A).
It is a fact that at the time of finalization of results of the Examinations conducted by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education (TBSE) Grace Marks are awarded with a view to keeping the pass percentage as close as possible to that of the immediate past year.
Grace Marks are awarded in Madhyamik as well as Higher Secondary Examinations. The quantum of maximum grace marks that can be given in a subject and the quantum of overall maximum grace marks are decided after analyzing the raw results i.e. the results obtained by posting the actual marks scored by the examinees against their names in the Result Sheet.
Obviously the quantum of maximum subject wise grace marks and maximum over all grace marks may vary from year to year. As to the W.P(C) No.1024 of 2016 of the Smt. Sarmistha Bhowmik referred to in this para the position was a follows.
Smt. Bhowmik appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination in 2016. She did not secure pass mark (21) in theory paper of some subject. The grace mark awarding formula that year was "subject wise maximum grace mark 12 and overall maximum grace mark 40". For availing of the maximum subject wise grace mark 12 a candidate had to have at least 9 in that subject for then adding to 12 to 9 the Page 4 of 5 score becomes 21 which is the pass mark. Smt. Bhowmik did not get even 9 in the connected subject and hence did not come in the grace mark awarding zone. Subsequently she applied for post publication review of her answer scripts. As a result of review her score increased and came into the grace awarding zone. But she was not given the grace mark as at that time Board's stand was "No Grace Marks for Post Review Marks.". Smt. Bhowmik then approached the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court then observed that grace marks should be given in post-review cases as well if the post-review marks come to be in the "grace mark awarding zone" as the post- review score is the score that the examinee would have got but for some under-valuing. In compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's decision the Board awarded grace marks to Smt. Bhowmik and with that she passed the HS Examination.
The instant case relates to HS Examination, 2017 when grace marks
awarding formula was "maximum subject wise grace marks 8 with overall maximum grace marks being 24."
In the 2017 HS Examination the petitioner (Smt. Sushama Roy) secured 12 in Physics. Even if she would be given the maximum subject wise grace mark, i.e. 8 her score would not reach 21 which is the pass mark. Hence she was not given the grace mark. After "review of answer script" also the Page 5 of 5 position remained same as marks in Physics did not change.
Then the petitioner applied for Self Inspection as a result of which her marks in Physics changed to 13 as against her original score 12 in Physics. With 13 in Physics she comes in the grace awarding zone for with grace mark 8 her score in Physics becomes 21 (13+8) which is the pass mark. With grace marks she also passes in Chemistry.
The answering respondent did not give her the grace mark on her post-self inspection score. Answering respondent is ready to give the same to the petitioner."
5. In the light of the admission made by the respondents in para-12 of the counter affidavit, this court is of the view that it is not necessary to examine the question above and the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents-
Board to consider the case of the petitioner to grant her grace marks in terms of what has been stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit and communicate the final decision within four weeks to the petitioner. No costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE Certificate : All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/order.
d. dey.