Kerala High Court
Dennison A.Das vs The State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2008
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: H.L.Dattu, K.M.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7887 of 2008(S)
1. DENNISON A.DAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :12/03/2008
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.7887 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008.
JUDGMENT
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
This writ petition is filed purportedly seeking invocation of the jurisdiction of public interest litigation. Petitioner is allegedly engaged in disseminating the values of education and in creating an awareness among the general public. Petitioner has approached this court seeking a mandamus prohibiting the respondents from including the marks given in the school level continuous evaluation as qualifying marks for determining D+ grading in the SSLC examination conducted by the respondents or in the alternative to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation of the petitioner within a time limit.
2. According to the petitioner, the Schools under the control of the first respondent are following a particular syllabus for SSLC examination and with effect from March, 2005 the first respondent had introduced Grading System in respect of the marks for publishing its results in the SSLC Examination. Prior to the grading system, the first respondent had fixed 35% marks and separate marks for each subject for getting pass mark in the SSLC Examination. The above standard was further relaxed by providing moderation from time to time. But the lowest minimum was always 30% in the aggregate. But, on introduction of the grading system, the respondents have fixed 30% marks for each subject for a pass, i.e. D+. However, in March, 2006 the respondents have effected further modification to the system of examination limiting the grading alone as the criteria for qualifying the examination.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that under the continuous WPC.7887/2008. 2 evaluation system, 20% of the total marks is set apart for continuous evaluation. 80% of the marks is set apart for the external examination. It is the contention of the petitioner that under the present system, if a student is given the entire 20 marks under the continuous evaluation system, he has only to earn 10 marks in the external examination system and having regard to the 30% minimum he is declared to have passed. According to the petitioner, this system is not in the interest of healthy education system. This method is not in the best interest of the education system and it renders the education system defective, it is the petitioner's case.
4. The object of the introduction of the Grading System is apparently to set apart certain percentage of marks for evaluating the performance of a student in the school spread over the whole of the academic year. This essentially would involve an opportunity for a teacher to analyse the conduct and the performance of the student over a particular period and to award maximum of 20 marks for the same. The assumptions and presumptions on the basis of which the petitioner is purported to have approached this court does not appeal to us as laying a foundation for exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A system which is introduced by the authority, which always may involve an element of experimentation, cannot be viewed by this court on the assumption that the extreme position which the petitioner projects before us will be the pattern which will emerge. The policy cannot be vetoed for the reason that it may result in case of an abuse. Having regard to the parameters within which a policy decision can be interfered in a court of law, we do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for our interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.