Orissa High Court
Arundhati Sahoo vs Board Of Secondary Education And Anr. on 15 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(I)OLR512
JUDGMENT R.K. Patra, J.
1. Of late it has come to be noticed that after publication of results of examinations conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (O.P. No. 1), large number of examinees have been approaching this Court alleging, inter alia, commission of errors in the evaluation process by the examiners. In many cases, this Court on examination has found that such complaints are not without any basis. The opposite parties are in charge of conducting the High School Certificate Examinations and Teachers' Certificate Examinations and other examinations. Opp. party No. 1 being a statutory authority is under an obligation to ensure correct evaluation process and elimination of possible errors committed by the examiners on account of their negligence, remisness, indifference or casual-ness. The Manual of Central Valuation compiled by the opp. party No. 1 deals, inter alia, with the duties and responsibilities of Chief Examiners, Assistant Examiners and Scrutinisers. The instructions contained therein are meant for compliance and not for disobedience. In the present day of heavy competition, a fraction of percentage can make or mar career of a student. As such, being duty bound the opposite parties should rise to the occasion and allay apprehension in the mind of an examinee that his/her answer paper was not fairly examined and evaluated by the examiner.
2. With the aforementioned prefatory observation, we may now look at the writ application by which the petitioner seeks for a direction to revaluate her answer paper, i. e. Paper-II (Principles and Problems of Education and School Organisation) relating to the Teachers' Certificate Examination, 1995 conducted by opp. party No. 1.
3. Concisely stated, the petitioner's case is that she passed High School Certificate examination held in April, 1991 in the second division by securing aggregate marks of 445. Subsequently, she passed the Annual Plus 2 Examination, 1993 in the second division by securing total marks of 436. Thereafter, she took her admission in Radhanath Secondary Training School, Cuttack to study the course of Teachers' Certificate. After completing her course, she appeared at the Teachers' Certificate Examination held in July, 1985 which was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (opp. party No. 1). She did very well in all the papers and was expecting to pass the examination in the first division. When the results were published, she found to her dismay that her name was not in the list of successful candidates. After obtaining the mark-list, she found that out of the total marks of 1060, she secured 653 but because of award of 13 marks out of full marks of 50 in Paper-II (Principles and Problems of Education and School Organisation) (in short, 'P.S.O.'), she was declared failed. According to the petitioner she had done well in the said paper and could not have get 23 marks. Apprehending that the said paper was not properly evaluated, she applied for rechecking of marks in the said paper by depositing Rs. 25/- on 12-10-1995 but the opposite parties did not inform anything about the result of rechecking of marks. Finding no other alternative, she has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. She has also filed an application (Misc. Case No. 547 of 1995) praying to call for her answer paper, i. e., Paper-II P.S.O. from the opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties have filed counter affidavit contending that petitioner's answer paper, i. e. Paper-II P.S.O. was placed before the "Checking of addition Committee" which after verification did not find any mistake in the addition of marks. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that there is no provision for revaluation of answer papers.
5. Shri Nayak contended that the petitioner is a good student and pissed the High School Certificate Examination as well as the Annual Plus 2 Examination in the second division by securing high marks and has answered ail the questions in Paper-II P.S.O. and was expecting high marks and in no circumstances, she could be awarded 12 out of 60 marks.
6. We are aware of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa v. Jasodhara Padhi (Civil Appeal No. 1362 of 1990 disposed of on 28-2-1990), The Supreme Court observed in that case that since the rules do not provide for revaluation of the answers, the marks awarded by the examiners appointed by the Council acquire finality and no other authority has power to reassess the same for the purpose of awarding marks and the Court should not direct for the revaluation of the answer books o an examinee unless there are compelling reasons for the same. If the Court finds it necessary to get the answer books revaluated, it must be carried out by the examiners approved and appointed by the examining authority and not by an outside agency.
7. We may state here that there is no inherent right of an examinee to gat his answer paper revaluated. But absence of provision for revaluation of answer paper of an examinee cannot take away the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue direction for revaluation of the answer paper of an examinee. If in a given case, there exist "compelling reasons", the Court would not hesitate to issue appropriate direction for revaluation of the answer paper in the interest of justice. In this context, we may refer to the following decisions of this Court reported in AIR 1991 Ori. 68 : (Miss Priyanka Priyadarshini v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar) AIR 1993 Orissa 239 : (Subrat Ghose v. Council of Higher Secondary Education): 1996 (I) OLR 134 (Bismaya Mohanty v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa).
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we directed the opposite parties to produce the answer Paper-II P.S.O. of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the learned counsel for the opposite parties produced the answer paper before us on 8-3-1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the question paper and the relevant text book. On examination of the answer paper, we found that the petitioner was awarded 'C' marks in respect of the answer to question Nos. 3 and 4 (e). Question No. 3 and question No. 4 (e) are as follows :
"Q. 3 Explain the usefulness of the instructional side used in teaching. Q. 4 (e) Write any one important feature of the educational philosophy of Pestelesal."
Both the questions are of essay type and the petitioner has answered both the questions. We verified the answers of those questions with reference to the text book and were satisfied that the answer given by the petitioner did not merit 'O' marks. There being time compelling reasons for revaluation of these two answers in the interest of justice, we directed the opposite parties on 8-3-1996 to get those two answers scrutinised through the Chief Examiner. It is relevant to mention here that the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa has framed certain instructions which, inter alia, deal with valuation of answer papers. Those instructions are found in the "Manual for Central Valuation". Paragraph D (4) of Section V of the said Manual deals with the duties of the Chief Examiner. It provides, inter alia, that the Chief Examiner has to examine minimum two specimen copies of each examiner on the first day and to re-examine 5% of the answer papers allotted to an examiner during the period of valuation. The Chief Examiner shall pick up answer papers at random for examination from among the papers already valued by the Assistant Examiner. Besides, re-examining, the Chief Examiner should make some test check of the papers scrutinised by the scrutinisers to see whether the scrutinisers are doing their duties correctly.
9. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the Chief Examiner scrutinised the two answers and awarded '4' marks in place of 'O' to the answer of question No. 3 and '4' marks in place of 'O' to the answer of question No. 4 (e). The total marks of the petitioner thus came to 17 1/2 to which the Chief Examiner rounded to '18'. The result is that the petitioner has now secured 18 marks out of 50 and thus has clearly obtained the pass marks in Paper-II P.S.O.
10. Consequently, we allow the writ application and direct the opposite parties to publish the result of the petitioner within one week hence and communicate to her the revised mark-list.
There shall be no order as to costs.
R.K. Dash, J.
I agree.