Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bharat Medda And Another vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 April, 2019
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
1
dApril,
019
KB)
W.P. 1383 (W) of 2019
Bharat Medda and another
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Subhro Prakash Lahiri
... for the petitioners
Mr. Arun Kumar Roy,
Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay
... for the State
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
... for the Board
The petitioner is aggrieved by the marks awarded to him in first language
(Bengali) in the Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Education), 2018. The
petitioner was initially awarded a total of 81 marks in the first language, which
was later enhanced to 82 after filing of the writ petition.
The petitioner filed the writ petition for a direction on the Board for
awarding "at least 10 marks in total" in relation to answers to specific questions.
The petitioner has also prayed for re-assessment of the answer scripts by an
external, third party expert.
After the writ petition was filed, the Board, upon considering the
representation of the petitioner, awarded an additional mark to the petitioner in
the first language, which made the total to 82 marks in first language (Bengali).
2
The petitioner, however, is not satisfied with the additional mark and insists that
a proper re-evaluation be made so that more marks may be awarded to him.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the answers to the specific
questions were taken from model answers in text books and the Board should
have awarded full marks to the petitioner for those questions. Counsel relies
upon two decisions of this Court rendered in CAN 6926 of 2011 in MAT 1067 of
2011[Nasita Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal and others] and in W.P. No.
12224(W) of 2015 [Md. Kamaluddin Middya Vs. The State of West Bengal and
others] as instance where re-evaluation was permitted by this Court.
In Nasita Biswas (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held, inter alia,
that in reviewing an answer script, the examiner is required to revisit and
reexamine all the questions as if he is examining such questions for the first
time. Md. Kamaluddin Middya (supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court directed
the concerned respondent to appoint a fresh examiner from the panel of
examiners for ascertaining whether an answer given by the petitioner was at all examined and whether appropriate marks were awarded to the petitioner in relation to other answers.
Counsel appearing for the Board relies on Regulation 14 of the Examination Regulations of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, 2001, which provides for reexamination and scrutiny. Under Regulation 14(1), a successful candidate may apply for scrutiny within 30 days from the date of publication of the result through the Head of his/her institution for one or more answer papers on payment of the prescribed fee. Under Regulation 14(2) an 3 unsuccessful candidate may apply for reexamination within 30 days from the date of publication of result for one or more answer papers on payment of the prescribed fee.
Counsel places Regulation 14(4), which provides, inter alia, that the work of scrutiny shall be confined to checking the correctness of the total marks awarded, unmarked portion, if any, and the correctness of transcription of marks in theory papers. Counsel emphasises sub-rule which provides that scrutiny shall not involve re-examination or a fresh evaluation of answer scripts. It makes a distinction between scrutiny and re-examination where in the latter case, the script shall be reassessed unlike simply checking the correctness of the total marks awarded etc. in the case of scrutiny.
Counsel submits that since the petitioner is a successful candidate, having passed the Madhyamik examination in 2018, the only recourse available to him would be scrutiny of the answer script and not re-examination.
Having considered the submissions of counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner is a successful candidate who not only passed the Madhyamik Examination but secured high marks in the first language, the marking of which forms the basis of the present writ petition.
However, the petitioner, who appears to be a good student, is aggrieved by not having been awarded full marks, which in his assessment, should have been awarded to him. It is evident from the Examination Regulations placed by the Counsel for the Board that the only recourse available to a successful candidate is for scrutiny of his answer scripts. It is correct that in Regulation 14(4), the 4 scope of scrutiny has been confined only to checking the correctness of the total marks awarded and checking if any answers have not been marked in theory papers. Under the said regulation, the scope of scrutiny has been clearly restricted to and distinguished from re-examination, which an unsuccessful candidate may apply for under Regulation 14(2). Unlike scrutiny, which appears to be simply a matter of calculation of marks, re-examination/re-evaluation would move a fresh re-assessment of the answers given by an examinee.
Going strictly by the Regulations, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can only avail of scrutiny of his marks and not re-evaluation or re- examination, which calls for a fresh assessment of the petitioner's answer script.
The other point which this Court cannot ignore is that the answer scripts, which form the basis of the petitioner's grievance, are not objective-type answers but are essay-type answers which makes the process of evaluation a subjective matter involving the assessment of the particular examiner. Once such an assessment has been made by an examiner, a court should not substitute its views by assessing whether the awarding of marks has been appropriate or not. The most important factor is that there is no regulation which points a successful candidate to have his answer scripts re-evaluated. It is also clear from the Regulations that the work of scrutiny involves a ministerial work confined to calculating the correctness of the total marks awarded and checking whether any answers have not been marked at all. By making a distinction between scrutiny and re-examination, the Regulations make it clear that scrutiny will not involve a 5 fresh look and consequent marking by the scrutinizer on any of the answers of a successful candidate.
The decisions relied upon by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner are concerned with the Regulations framed for the School Service Commission (Md. Kamaluddin Middya) and Regulations pertaining to University Examinations in Nasita Biswas (supra). In the latter case, the candidate had appeared for her Philosophy (Honours) examination and had complained of lack of proper evaluation of her answer script. These two decisions cannot, therefore, apply to the Regulations framed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
The submission of Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case was considered as a special case by the Board which led to awarding of an additional mark cannot be seen as a relevant factor for directing a fresh re-evaluation of the answer scripts when the Regulations do not provide for any such mechanism in respect of a successful candidate.
The petitioner is now a student of Class XI and does not appear to have suffered any particular prejudice by having a shortfall of 9 marks in the total marks awarded in the first language in Madhyamik 2018.
In view of the above, W.P.1383(W) of 2019 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)