Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharinath Das Gupta vs Board Of Secondary Education on 15 March, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT
INDORE
SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
WRIT PETITION No.4517/2017
SHARINATH DAS GUPTA
Vs.
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the respondent.
______________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting: YES
Reserved on 07.03.2018
ORDER
(Passed on:15 /03/2018) By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeking revaluation of his answer-book of subject of mathematics on account of incorrect checking of question no. 6 for the increase of only one marks .
The petitioner being a student of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2016-17 appeared in subject of English, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and secured distinction marks. He got 374 out of 500 and passed in the first division. The petitioner is short by 1 mark to secure 75% marks to make him eligible to appear in JEE examination to secure admission in IIT & IIIT & BITS Pilani.
The petitioner obtained his answer book of mathematics subject and came to know that the question No.6 was wrongly valued by the valuer and he was awarded zero marks, whereas 2 he has solved the said question correctly. He submitted application for revaluation but same has been turned down due to non availability of provisions in regulation. Therefore, he has filed the present petition before this Court.
Advance copy of this petition was served to the learned counsel of the Board of Secondary Education for filling reply to the writ petition .
Along with the reply, the respondent has filed relevant part of the Regulation No.119 according to which any candidate who has appeared in Class-XII examination may apply to the Secretary for verification whether the candidate's answer in particular subject have all been examined and there has been no mistake in totalling of the marks in that subject, but not for evaluation of answer. Vide order dated 02.07.2017, the petitioner has been informed that there is no provision of revaluation, hence, his application for revaluation has been rejected. The respondent Board has placed reliance over the judgment passed by this Court in case of Neha Indurkhya Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, reported in 2003(3) MPHT 311 by submitting that the revaluation is not permissible under the Rules and regulations.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the rejoinder by submitting that in case of Shivam Maheshwari Vs. Board of Secondary Education (W.P.No.3835/2017), this Court has held that the revaluation is permissible only in an extra ordinary case.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties . By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the rechecking of answer no.6 of subject mathematics as well as 3 revaluation of answer of Hindi subject. In one of the case of Pranshu Indurkhyav Vs. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 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. "
In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v/s Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth [AIR 1984 SC 1543] and 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].
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) 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, 4 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 [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.
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 governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the 5 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."
In view of the above, it is clear that in extraordinary circumstances this Court has a power to direct the Board to re- evaluate the answer-book.
So far as the revaluation of question No.6 in the mathematics subject is concerned, the question was to "prove A and B are parallel". The petitioner has answered the question by way of the following method:
"Given that :-
→ a= 5↑ + 15j → and 5 = 3 i + 9 j → → ax b= |↑ j K| |5 15 0 | |3 9 0 | → → ^ a x b = ↑(15x0 - 9x0) - j (5x0 - 3x0) + k (9x5 -15x3) → → a x b = 0-0 + R (45-45) → → a x b =0 6 → → → → Since a x b is zero a and b are parallel. "
The petitioner has filed copy of model answer of mathematics subject as Annexure P/4 in which different method was given to prove A & B are parallel, but there is a note that if question is answered by a different method, then the marks would be given to the student.
The petitioner has answered a x b = O which also proves that a & b are parallel as per the method given in Part 2 of the text book for Class -XII published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training that if a & b are two non zero vectors, then a x b = 0 and if a & b are parallel (co liner) to each other i.e. → → → → → a x b = o ↔ a || b.
The definition 3 is reproduced below:
"Definition 3 The Vector product of two nonzero → → → → vectors a and b, is denoted by a x b and defined as → → →→ ^ a x b = [a] [b] sin θ n, → → ^ Where, θ is the angle between a and b, 0 ≤ θ ≤ π and n is a unit vector perpendicular to both a and b, such that a, b and n form a right handed system i.e. the right handed system rotated from a to b moves in the direction of n.
If either a = 0 or b = 0, then θ is not defined and in this case, we define a x b = o Observations 7
1. a x b is a vector.
2. Let a and b be two nonzero vectors. Then a x b = 0 if and only if a and b are parallel (or collinear) to each other i.e. → → → → → a x b = o ↔ a || b → → → → → → In particular, a x a = o and a x (-a) = o, since in the first situation, θ = 0 and in the second one, θ = π, making the value of sin θ to be o."
It is clear from the aforesaid that the vector products of two non zero products is no collinear i.e. a x b = o ↔ a||b.
The petitioner was required to answer a & b are parallel and the method which is available in the text books, when he has proved that a x b = o, then he has proved that a & b are parallel. The valuer has wrongly granted zero marks to him, hence he is entitled for two full marks in question no.6.
The next question is that whether the court is required the expert of the subject in the court to recheck the answer book .When the petitioner has filed the petition along with the photocopy answer book supplied by the board and the copy of model answer book, then respondent board ought to have filed the return on merits with parawise comments. Along with the return board ought to have filed the opinion of expert of the concerned subject , Then there would no occasion for calling the expert in the 8 Court for rechecking of the answer-book .
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.
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.
As discussed above, the petitioner has correctly answered the question no.6 and he is a meritorious student who has secured 96 marks out of 100 in the said subjcet, therefore, he deserves 2 more marks in subject.
Hence Writ Petition is allowed. Board of Secondary Education , Bhopal is directed to increase the 2 marks in the mathematics subject and re-issue the mark-sheet to the petitioner.
No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
jasleen Judge
Digitally signed by Jasleen
Singh Saluja
Date: 2018.03.15 16:12:58
+05'30'