Madras High Court
R.Suganya vs The Director Of Government ... 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.Nos.10088 to 10094 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2012 W.P.No.10088 of 2012 R.Suganya ... Petitioner Vs The Director of Government Examinations, DPI Campus, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent herein to re-value the theory answer paper of the petitioner in Subject Code No.110 for the first year in the two year Diploma in Teacher Training Course for the exams held in June 2011 for the Roll No.1122559. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Srinivas For Respondents : Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, AGP C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners have filed the writ petitions, seeking for a direction to the respondent to re-value the theory answer paper of the Subject Code No.110 for the first year in the two year Diploma in Teacher Training Course for the examinations held during June 2011.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have made an application for issue of the photocopy of the answer sheets. It was stated by the petitioners that their answer sheets have not been valued properly and there is every possibility that the answer sheets not being valued properly since the petitioners have acquired high marks in mathematics in their +2 examinations.
3. According to the petitioners, though the examinations were held in June 2011, the results were published only on 31.03.2012 and the same was made known to their institution in which they studied only on 02.04.2012. The petitioners, even though they had very good academic record in mathematics, they were shown as failed in the said paper.
4. It is not clear as to how the petitioners can maintain a writ petition when they have not even seen the answer sheet and it is only based upon mere assertion. Therefore, when the mater came up on 17.04.2002, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) to get instructions from the respondent to find out whether re-valuation is allowed in the examinations held for the teacher training course. On instructions, the learned Additional Government Pleader states that there are no Rules providing for revaluation.
5. However, the question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court vide judgment reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others] held that in the absence of any right for re-valuation, no examinee can question the marks and seek for revaluation. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to order direction as prayed for by the petitioners.
6. However, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners after referring to the typed set in which the petitioners have made a request for photocopy of the answer books submitted that they have not have been furnished with the answer sheets so for. Even that question came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide judgment reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 [Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others], wherein, the Supreme held that the answer book is a document or record in terms of Section 2(f) and 2(i) of the RTI Act. The evaluated answer book becomes a record containing the "opinion" of the examiner. The citizens have the right to access to all the information held by or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the RTI Act.
7. Therefore, the examinees have every right to seek for copies of the answer sheets subject to the payment of any expenditure involved for the same. But with reference to revaluation, as already held, in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (cited supra) the Supreme Court negatived such claim. The said judgment also came to be quoted with approval in the CBSE case (cited supra), while disapproved the reasoning regarding disclosure of answer sheet disturbed the finding regarding revaluation.
8. In the light of the above, while dismissing the wit petitions, the respondent is directed to furnish photocopy of the answer sheets in respect of each candidate for the examination written by them in relation to Subject Code No.110 First Year Diploma in the two year Diploma in Teacher Training Course for the exams held in June 2011. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.04.2012 Index:Yes Internet:Yes svki To The Director of Government Examinations, DPI Campus, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034 K.CHANDRU,J.
Svki W.P.Nos.10088 to 10094 of 2012 20.04.2012