Madras High Court
T.Tamilarasi vs The Director on 20 April, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.04.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.10432 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 T.Tamilarasi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Director, Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Director, Directorate of Govt. Examinations, DPIO Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for revaluation of her answer papers for D.T.Ed., course for the academic year 2010-11. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dhananjayan For Respondents : Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, AGP O R D E R
The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider her representation for revaluation of her answer papers for the Diploma Course in Teacher Education for the academic year 2010-11.
2. In the said representation, the copy of which found at page 6 of the typed set, the petitioner has stated that in the 2nd year D.T.Ed examination held during June 2011, she got 38 marks in English and 43 marks in Tamil, but she has written very well in the examination. When she asked for re-valuation of marks, the college Principal informed her that there is no provision for re-valuation. The petitioner has also attached the mark sheet to show that except in English and Tamil, she has secured very good marks and therefore, she wanted re-valuation of her papers.
3. When the matter came up on 17.04.2012, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondent to find out whether re-valuation is permissible. Today, when the matter came up, the learned Additional Government Pleader informed that there is no rule for re-valuation.
4. In this context it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others], wherein, the Supreme court held that in the absence of any right for re-valuation, no examinee can question the marks and seek for revaluation. It is necessary to refer to the following passages found in paragraphs 27,28 and 29:-
"27. The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevance for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances, the University of Bombay has decided to recognise a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and HSC examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.
28. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra7 the test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life's realities. If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High Court judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent part of his right to fair play be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results of the competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been complied with and the results of the verification and revaluation have been brought into account.
29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.
5. In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
20.04.2012 Index:Yes Internet:Yes svki To
1.The Director, Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Director, Directorate of Govt. Examinations, DPIO Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
K.CHANDRU,J.
Svki W.P.No.10432 of 2012 20.04.2012