Madras High Court
J.Merin Jughy vs The Director Of School Examination on 16 March, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.03.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
REV.APLC (MD) No.127 of 2015
in
W.A.(MD) No.968 of 2013
J.Merin Jughy
represented by her
Father and Natural Guardian,
Mr.P.Jayasekar ... Review Applicant/Appellant/
Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Director of School Examination,
Directorate of Government Examinations,
Chennai ? 600 006.
2.The Joint Director (Re-valuation)
Directorate of Government Examinations,
Chennai ? 600 006.
3.The Secretary,
State Board of School Examinations,
(Higher Secondary),
Department of Government Examinations,
Chennai.
4.The Selection Committee,
Director of Medical Education,
E.V.R.Periyar Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai.
5.The Chairman,
Medical Council of India,
New Delhi. ... Respondents/Respondents/
Respondents
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the
Civil Procedure Code praying to review the order dated 12.09.2013 made in
W.A.(MD) No.968 of 2013.
!For Appellant : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
^For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan,
Special Government Pleader [R1 to R4]
Mr.P.Mahendran [R5]
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was prepared by C.T.SELVAM, J.) This review application is preferred against the order of dismissal passed in W.A.(MD) No.968 of 2013 on 12.09.2013.
2. The review applicant preferred W.P.(MD) No.13701 of 2013 informing that his daughter, having appeared in the higher secondary examination held in March 2013 had sought revaluation of her Chemistry answer sheet. The review applicant contended that though his daughter had correctly written answer for question No.43, she has not been granted any marks therefor in the original valuation.
3. Informing that the revaluation result had not been published and the same was necessary towards his daughter obtaining a medical seat under Government quota, the review applicant sought issue of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of his daughter dated 12.08.2013 and to award further marks in her favour in the Chemistry Theory Paper after revaluing her answer to Question No.43. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge under order dated 20.08.2013. Such order reads thus:
?The petitioner underwent +2 examination and she has secured 143 marks out of 150 in Chemistry theory paper. Being dissatisfied with the mark, she gave a representation on 17.06.2013 for re-valuation in respect of question No.43.
2. Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the re-valuation was done, however, as far as question No.43 is concerned, the petitioner was awarded three marks and as far as question No.65 is concerned, the original mark awarded 5, was reduced to 3+ on re-valuation.
Similarly for question No.66 is concerned, the award of 5 marks, on re- valuation got reduced to 4+ marks. In effect, the total marks obtained by the petitioner is maintained as 143 and there is no change in the total marks. However, the re-valuation marks has not been given to the petitioner.
3. In view of that, the respondents are directed to give the marks obtained by the petitioner on re-valuation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.?
4. Aggrieved, the review applicant preferred W.A.(MD) No.968 of 2013 which was dismissed under orders dated 12.09.2013. The review applicant seeks review of the order in the writ appeal contending that she had not sought re- valuation for all questions but only for question No.43 in the subject of Chemistry. It is contended that not having awarded any marks for Question No.43 in the original evaluation, on two occasions the respondents had informed that there had been no change in the re-valuation and this had been done by awarding three marks for question No.43 at the second re-valuation but reducing the marks awarded for question Nos.65, 66 and 70 though the answers to such questions afforded by the petitioner's daughter were in keeping with the text book and key answers. The further contention is that the actual reduction in marks on re-valuation was only 2+ and not 3 and when such was the case, as per G.O.Ms.No.77 School Education Department dated 07.05.2001 no reduction of marks was permissible. G.O.Ms.No.77 School Education Department dated 07.05.2001 informed that where the reduction of marks is below 3, the same is to be ignored. A perusal of the order sought to be reviewed makes clear that on a detailed appreciation, this Court has found justified the reduction of marks in respect of question Nos.65, 66 and 70 informing thus:
?16. However, it transpires that the subject Expert reduced 1+ marks for question No.65, + mark for question No.66 and + mark in question No.70 from the marks already awarded in favour of the Appellant/Petitioner in Central valuation. For reducing 1+ marks for question No.65, reducing + marks for question No.66 and + mark for question No.70, on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3, had assigned reasons because for question No.65, 'Definition of co-ordination isomerism was wrong' and for question No.66, the Appellant/Petitioner's answer was wrong and therefore, + mark was reduced since in 66(1) comparison of size in frankel defect was wrong and for question No.70(d), the unit of answer was wrong.?
5. This Court has also explained that a student cannot seek revaluation regards particular questions in a question paper but could do so only in respect of the entire question paper. Paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the order read thus:
?20. As such, a cursory perusal of the aforesaid instructions, relating to 'Revaluation of answer scripts', latently and patently indicates that the revaluation may be applied for any subjects under the Higher Secondary Examination after getting their copy of answer script etc. Therefore, the revaluation cannot be done for a single question in a particular subject. Instead, the revaluation must be made for the particular subject paper and there is no Rule governing the situation to answer one or more questions as the case may be. When the appellant/petitioner has admittedly applied for the revaluation of Chemistry answer script, it is open to the subject experts to either increase or decrease the marks initially/originally awarded and there is no enforceable or any vested right available to a student to ask for revaluation of one answer/some answers.
21. To put it succinctly, the instructions relating to revaluation of answer scripts do not provide for piece meal/part-wise revaluation. In fact, the instructions governing the revaluation of answer scripts are quite just, fair, equitable and prudent one, in the considered opinion of this Court.
Looking at from any point of view, the writ appeal is devoid of merits.?
6. Learned counsel for the review applicant rightly has contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.77 School Education Department dated 07.05.2001, no reduction of marks is to be made when the reduced marks on re-valuation is under '3'. As has been contended by the review applicant, the reduction on re-valuation is 2+ marks and hence, respondents rightly have informed no change.
The Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
.