Gauhati High Court
Mrs Manashree Das vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 28 April, 2011
Equivalent citations: AIR 2012 GAUHATI 16, (2011) 104 ALLINDCAS 442 (GAU), (2011) 4 GAU LR 798, (2011) 4 GAU LT 228
Author: A.K. Goswami
Bench: A.K. Goswami
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA:
MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No. 2896/09
Mrs. Manashree Das,
Wife of Mr. Ambika Kr. Saloi,
Resident of House No.14 A, Ashram Road,
Santipur, P.S. Bharalumukh, District-Kamrup,
Assam, Guwahati-781009.
.........Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Assam, represented by
Commissioner/Secretary to the Govt. of
Assam, Department of Education, Dispur,
Guwhati-6.
2.The Gauhati University, represented by the
Registrar, Gauhati University, Guwahati-14.
3. The Controller of Examination, Gauhati University,
Guwahati-14.
..........Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI For the petitioner : Mr. S. Baruah, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. L.P. Sarma, Advocate Date of hearing : 31.3.11 Date of judgment :28.04.11 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Questioning the assessment of her 2nd paper, i.e. Psychological Foundation of Education and 3rd paper, i.e. Issues and Problems of Secondary Education in the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) examination conducted by the Gauhati University in the year 2007-08 and the marks awarded 2 thereof, which according to the petitioner, is a result of negligent and irresponsible manner of evaluation of the papers in question, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying, in essence, for re-examination and scrutiny of the answer scripts of these two papers under the supervision of this Court by an expert, and for consequential directions arising there from.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she had a good academic career all throughout and had obtained good marks in all examinations. She had passed H.S.L.C. examination with 81% marks and M. Sc in Economics in the year 1994 from Gauhati University securing 1st Class 4th position. She is presently working as a lecturer in Economics in Dakshin Kamrup Girls College, Mirza, Kamrup. She had enrolled in the one year degree course of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) in the Assam Sikshak Prakshishan Mahabidyalaya, Langkeswar, under the Gauhati University in the year 2007-08 and she had taken the examination held in the month of September, 2008. The B. Ed examination consists of 7 papers and the pass marks required in each subject is 36% and to qualify in the said examination, one has to obtain aggregate of 280 marks out of 700. She was well prepared for the examination and she wrote the papers to her satisfaction and she never had any illusion that she will not come out successful in the examination. She was stunned and shell-shocked coming to know that she had failed when the results were declared in the month of March,2008. She was dismayed by 27 and 26 marks 3 awarded to her in the 2nd and 3rd paper, respectively and, therefore, she had immediately prayed for re-checking of the answer scripts of 2nd and 3rd papers and for giving her photocopies of the answer scripts, by paying requisite fee. She was informed by the University authority that on re- examination, no discrepancy was noticed. However, on going through the photocopies of the answer scripts made available to her, she found that she was given only 4 marks out of 20 in question No. 1 and 6 in 3rd paper in spite of writing correct answer and only 1 (one) mark was awarded out of 10 in question No.7(a). She also found that inadequate marks were awarded to her in 2nd paper. It is her pleaded version that such award of marks is a result of grossly negligent and irresponsible manner of evaluating the answer scripts.
3. The petitioner's answer scripts of 2nd and 3rd papers were produced before the Court on 14.9.09 and finding that the petitioner had answered all the questions, the University authorities were directed to get the answer scripts re- examined and re-evaluated by any other qualified examiner who had not earlier examined the answer scripts.
4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed an affidavit-in- opposition affirmed by the Controller of Examination of the Gauhati University vouchsafing that the answer scripts of the petitioner were examined by experienced examiners in the subjects.
5. It was pointed out that pursuant to the direction of this court dated 14.9.09, the petitioner's answer scripts in 2nd 4 and 3rd papers were re-evaluated by different examiners and after such re-evaluation, while in 2nd paper, the petitioner still got 27 marks, in 3rd paper, she was awarded 35 marks. Such variation of marks in 3rd paper from 26 to 35, did not materially alter her result.
6. In the affidavit, it was also indicated that the petitioner had narrowly passed 4th and 5th papers securing only 36 and 38 marks, respectively. In 1st and 6th papers, the petitioner secured only 41 and 44 marks, respectively, and that she had failed to secure qualifying aggregate marks except in the External Assessment Paper. It has also been sought to be highlighted that as per University procedure, re- examination does not mean re-evaluation of the scripts and that it only means that the scripts will be simply scrutinized by the officers of the University. It has also been averred that answer scripts are evaluated by the examiners on the basis of the norms fixed by the examining body. In view of above unimpeachable manner of evaluation of the answer scripts and in absence of any allegation of malafide, it was impressed upon that this Court may not embark upon a journey in academic matters and substitute its view in preference to professional men possessing technical expertise.
7. I have heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel representing Gauhati University.
8. Mr. Baruah has submitted that all is not well with the mechanism of evaluation of answer scripts under the aegis 5 of the Gauhati University and given the academic credentials demonstrated by her previous performances in the examinations right up to the M. Sc. final examination, it would in no unmistakable term point to grave anomalies in the system and skewed award of marks inasmuch as 27 marks in 2nd paper and 26 marks in 3rd paper is just not conceivable. The petitioner was a good student all throughout and, therefore, she also has a fair idea of how she had fared in the examination and viewed in that perspective, she has not been able to reconcile to the fact that she got only 27 and 26 marks in 2nd and 3rd paper respectively. It is also submitted by him the fact that on re- examination, the petitioner secured 35 marks in paper 3rd paper though originally she was awarded 26 marks, reflects that under the system there is possibility of grave variation of marks depending on who the examiner is. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that after re- examination of the papers, the answer scripts were produced before this court and he had personally inspected the said answer scripts. He concedes that re-examination as ordered by this court was done but leaves him unsatisfied with the way the papers have been evaluated. Therefore, he urges this court to have the papers re-examined once again under the supervision of this court through experts in the field.
9. Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Gauhati University is forthright in his submission and re-iterates, in substance, the stand taken in the affidavit. He also subtly hints that the tall claim made by the petitioner that she has been a brilliant student all throughout, may not be correct at all and, therefore, according to him, though 6 mark sheets of the various examinations taken by her, were annexed with the writ petition, yet conspicuously she had not stated the marks obtained by her in H.S.S.L.C. (Science) examination as well as in B. Sc. examination. This was deliberately not mentioned in the writ petition because her result was nothing much to drive home about. Not only that, it would appear that she had taken one betterment chance in the H.S.S.L.C. (Science) examination as well. It is also submitted by him that she had obtained just pass marks of 36 in 1st paper. Her performance in the examination, as a whole, was less than average but so far as other subjects are concerned, she makes no bones about the marks secured by her because she had passed in the subjects. However, just because she had failed in the two subjects mentioned earlier, she has raised the issue of under assessment. Mr. Sarma has assiduously urged that the answer scripts have been evaluated by competent and duly qualified examiners on the basis of norms fixed by the University. Although the Rules do not prescribe for re- evaluation of answer scripts, in deference to the order passed by this court, the answer scripts were re-evaluated by examiners who were not earlier associated with the evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in the subjects in question. Therefore, according to him, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to re-examine the answer scripts once again under the supervision of this court through experts, is not only not advisable but the same is also wholly without any merit and is beyond the contours of the power of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
710. Noticeably, the writ petitioner did not file any reply affidavit to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 unequivocally attesting that the answer scripts of the petitioner were examined by expert and experienced examiners on the basis of norms fixed by the examining body. Edifice of the present writ petition for re-examination of the answer scripts is built on her own assessment; her scores in earlier examinations conducted by the Board as well as by the University, providing the sheet anchor. She has referred to in her petition about negligence, albeit, vaguely, and as if by passing reference.
11. It was perhaps because of the fact that she had secured 81% marks in HSLC examination and 1st Class 4th position in M. Sc examination in the year 1994, which was highlighted in the writ petition, that this court directed for re- evaluation of her answer scripts by examiners who had not earlier examined her answer scripts.
12. Even after inspection of the answer scripts, it is not the case of the petitioner that answer scripts in question were not evaluated but what is contended was inadequacy of marks awarded to the questions attempted. If inspection, verification and re-evaluation under the supervision of this court or in presence of the candidates is to be allowed as a matter of course, given the large number of students that take the examinations on a regular basis, it may lead to indefinite uncertainty. Prayer for re-examination or re- evaluation may arise on any count and may be made not only by one who has not secured pass marks and who seeks re-evaluation with the hope that he might get through on 8 such re-examination but also by rank holders or by some one who has narrowly missed the rank or for that matter, by anyone taking the examination. This may lead to confusion besides saddling the examining bodies with a burden which may be too heavy for them to shoulder and consequently, the remedy may well turn out to be worse than the disease. However, this is not to say that the court cannot enter into the domain which largely belongs to the expert bodies, even if a case is made out for re-evaluation.
13. We are living in a very competitive world. The results of an examination affords the student a solid base to embark upon a journey in life and for career progression. It is in this context, the role of examiners has to be seen. Their role is pivotal and may make or mar the destiny of a student. An onerous responsibility is cast on them to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated and equally it is important for the examining body to take all possible steps to eliminate the elements of chance and luck. The instant case itself shows that on re-evaluation in the 3rd paper, the marks obtained by her was increased to 35 from only 26. It is of course true that evaluation of two persons cannot be expected to be identical or same but the possibility of wide variation may result in affecting the credibility of the examination system.
14. The scope of interference of this court in matters of evaluation of answer papers is very limited and considering the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education V. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27, the Supreme Court in 9 President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another
-Vs- D.Suvankar and another, reported in (2007)1 SCC 603, eloquently summed up as follows:
"....................(T)he court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matter 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 would 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 pragmatic one was to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero-defect system of evaluation , or a system which is almost foolproof."
15. The answer scripts of the petitioner have been re- evaluated. On such re-evaluation also, the petitioner has not come out successful. In view of my discussions above, further direction for re-examination of the papers by any examiner is not called for. It is in public interest that results of public examination should have finality attached to them. It is time that the matter is given a quietus.
1016. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE Upadhaya