Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Omprakash Tiwari And Another vs Government Of A.P. And Others on 16 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD161, 1999(4)ALT327
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER
T. Ch. Sisrya Rao, J
1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been sought to be invoked in these two writ petitions by the petitioners in a Public Interest Litigation.
2. The petitioner in WP No.8421 of 1999 is a resident of Nizambad District and claims himself to be the Secretary of Rajasthan Shikshana Samithi which has been running 'Haricharan Marwadi Vidhyalay', a recognized institute in Nizambad town. The petitioner in the other writ petition claims himself to be the Teacher and Correspondent of St. Adam's High School, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, which is again a recognized institute of Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner seek a writ, order, declaration or direction by declaring the inaction of the respondents in not taking a decision immediately to add 16 1/2 marks in the General Science Paper-I (Physical Sciences) of SSC Examination, 1999 to all the students who appeared for the Annual Examinations, 1999 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to add 16 1/2 marks to all the students and also to direct the Government of A.P. to enact a separate legislation to deal with the erring/negligent officers for dereliction of duties seriously with heavy penal actions, if they failed to discharge the statutory duties apart from the payment of compensation, damages, in addition to departmental action elc., and to conduct separate training classes in summer holidays to the teachers of X Class and to pass such other orders as the Court deems fit.
3. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions questioning the inaction of the respondents on the premise that in regard to X Class annual examinations conducted by the State Government from 22nd March to 6th April, 1999 in the State the Government supplied blue print in December, 1998 and three (3) sets of model papers along with the guidelines in February, 1999 and the S.S.C. General Science Paper-I (Physical Science) did not conform to the blue print, model papers and guidelines and deviated from the said model paper which was supplied by the Education Department itself. The blue print clearly indicates the marks allotted to each lesson or chapter and the model paper clearly indicates pattern of examination. The details of the alleged deviation are as mentioned hereunder.
4. Firstly, in respect of Section I Group-A General Science Paper-I (Physical Science), as per the model paper, questions should be asked to define a particular thing, distinguish between the things and a diagram should be asked to be drawn, whereas in the question paper in Section-I, Group-A it is totally different pattern, and therefore, there is a deviation. Secondly, as regards question No.21, Section III, Group-B (Chemistry), the value of log 2 is required to calculate pH value, but it was not given in the question papers and the invigilators did not permit the logortham table books in the examination hall. Thirdly, according to the model paper Section IV, Questions 23 and 24 should be asked for diagram only, whereas in the question paper, different pattern was given by calling for long and lengthy answers which is in total deviation from the model paper. Fourthly, according to the blue print, a question carrying 7 1/2 marks in the Modem Physics and a question carrying 8 marks in the Electronics shall figure in the question paper and instead 3 marks question was given in the Modem Physics and no question was given from the Electronics in total deviation to the model paper. The students have lost an opportunity, therefore, to write the answers for which they have prepared and have become totally depressed. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Government added one mark in Mathematics Paper-I for the fault committed by the authorities in deviating from the model paper. Therefore, on the ground of equality, all the students must be added 16 1/2 marks in General Science Paper-I (Physical Science) also.
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh conducted 10th Class Annual Examinations from 22nd March to 6th April, 1999 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. More than six lakhs students appeared in the said examination.
6. It is the stand of the respondents that the blue print was for the guidance of the teachers to prepare the students for examinations keeping in view the educational objectives and type of questions. It is only a model and was not a rigid one restricting the liberty of the question paper setter in setting questions and allocating marks. It is the further stand of the respondents that basing on the representations from various organisations some portions of the syllabus items were deleted in the S.S.C. Public Examinations for the year 1999 and even after the deletion, no revised blue print was issued to the Schools because it was only a mode! paper and is not a rigid one. It is the specific stand of the respondents that the blue print as well as the model question papers have been issued to the schools for the benefit of the teachers so as to allow them to teach the students.
7. The 10th Class Public Examinations were conducted by the Government during the period between 26lh March to 6th April, 1999. About six lakhs of students appeared for the examinations. The deviation claimed by the petitioners from the model paper to the question paper is only in respect of General Science Paper-I, but not in regard to the other subjects. Apart from the claims that the question paper was in deviation to the blue print and model question papers, the petitioners seem to have been invoking Article 14 of the Constitution on the premise that the Government declared to add one grace mark in Mathematics paper in the same examination for the deviation of one question from the model paper. In support of their case the petitioners made available the copies of the blue print, three model question papers, the two paper clippings of Deccan Chronicle English Daily and the question paper of General Science Paper-I. As can be seen from one of the two paper clippings it appears to have been published as a news item in Deccan Chronicle March, 29th issue mentioning inter alia quoting the Commissioner and Director of the School Education that one mark each would be awarded to the students of English and Telugu media as question numbers 23 and 26 of Maths Paper-I, Part-B were found to be in deviation of the model question paper circulated by the Department of Government Examinations.
8. We have heard at length the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for School Education and the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the documents made available.
9. It has been represented by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the news item in Deccan Chronicle of 29th March issue was not correct and that the Government decided to add one grace mark for the wrong framing of a question, but not on account of deviation of the question from the model paper. The petitioners have not been able to substantiate their plea that the Government decided to add one grace mark in Mathematics Paper for the alleged deviation of the question paper from the model paper so as to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution in respect of the General Science Paper-I, nor the learned Counsel for the petitioners was able to dispute the said representation of the learned Additional Advocate General, in view of this clarification, we cannot place much reliance on the newspaper reports. Further more, newspaper reports are in the nature of hearsay evidence, and therefore, not admissible in evidence. Vide Samanth N. Balakrishna v. George Fernanda, . Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioners cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution and urge on the ground of equality, 16 1/2 marks shall be added in General Science Paper I.
10. Coming to the crucial question of deviation, much depends upon the fact as to whether the blue print and model papers issued by the Government were meant to guide the students or the teachers and paper setters. The learned Additional Advocate-General made available the Notification in Rc.No.126/B-1/98, dated 21-10-1998 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department while directing the circulation of the blue print and model papers to all the District Educational Officers and Schools in the State for our perusal. It is expedient to extract the relevant portion of the said notification hereunder for brevity and better understanding:
" Therefore, I furnish herewith the copies of the above Model/New Question Papers Blue-Prints etc., and request you to follow the same from the academic year 1998-99 and onwards for Classes VIII to X. I also request you to give Press Note through ail leading Daily Newspapers as a News Item and also communicate a sample primed set to each of the Secondary Schools (Recognised) under your jurisdiction for the guidance of teachers and taught."
It is obvious, therefore, that the blue print and model question papers prepared by the Experts Committee are meant to guide the teachers so as to teach the students effectively and to make them prepared for the examination. It has not been shown before us that these blue print and model papers have been directed to be circulated to the students. There can be no gainsaying that the copies of the blue print and model papers have percolated to the student community throughout the State. The name that it is a model question paper itself suggests that it is meant to be a model, and therefore, cannot be a valid ground for insisting that the question papers should invariably be in accordance with the model paper. That apart, if the question paper is strictly in accordance with the model, the purpose and efficacy of the examinations might be lost as the students can clearly visualise the type of questions as the area for the preparation of students would be limited to a narrow compass. We do not, therefore, think that the deviation if any can afford a cause for legitimate complaint. Blue print and the model question papers have been prepared by a Committee consisting of experts in the field.
11. We will now proceed to consider the various deviations mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. As regards the first deviation, it is not the case of the petitioners that these three questions in Section I Group-A of the question paper are not covered by the syllabus. Strictly speaking, it is a case of omission of framing questions in regard to certain definitions; in regard to distinguishing certain things; and in regard to drawing a sketch. It cannot validly be complained that invariably, the question paper should contain questions on the definitions; on drawing the diagrams; and on distinguishing the things. We, therefore, see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that questions 1 to 3 in Section I, Group-A of the question paper in General Science (Physical Science) is in deviation of the model question paper.
12. In regard to the 2nd objection, there seems to be a valid ground for the grievance. It is not a case of deviation from the model paper or the blue print. The learned Additional Advocate General represented before us that the respondents have taken a decision already to give full marks to that question provided the students make an attempt in right direction to answer it. In view of the unequivocal representation made before us, we consider that there is no need to give any specific direction in this regard.
13. Coming to the 3rd objection, it is not squarely a case of omission to put questions asking the students to draw diagrams. We have gone through the question paper, a copy of which is made available to us. Instead of asking to draw the diagrams alone in both these questions, the students have been asked to describe and explain the diagrams by stretching it further. We, therefore, see no deviation as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It cannot legitimately be said that the question should invariably limit itself only to drawing of the diagram and cannot be stretched further so as to describe or explain the diagram to be drawn. It is not squarely a case of any deviation and the contention of the petitioners appears to be fallacious.
14. Coming to the fourth deviation, on a perusal of the copy of the blue print made available to us, it is obvious from the breakup given in the blue print that the question shall carry 7 1/2 marks. But, that depends upon the type of question that is given. If it pertains to test the knowledge of the student, that question should carry a different mark. Similarly, if it pertains to the areas of 'understanding', 'application' and 'skill' depending upon the type of question, namely, essay type, short answer type, very short answer type or objective type, the question carries different marks as given in the blue print. Blue Print thus gives broadly the guidelines as to the number of marks to be allocated in setting the question papers for public examinations, depending upon the pattern of question and the area it covers as mentioned in the blue print. The paper setters shall be given the necessary liberty to set the paper basing on this blue print strictly adhering to the syllabus. If they are asked to set the paper without budging even an inch from the blue print and the model papers, it may amount to curtailing their liberty, who are also experts in the field. Serial No. 10 of this blue print pertains to the subject Modern Physics. It does not suggest that invariably a question carrying 7 1/2 marks shall be given in the Modern Physics. As regards the omission of a question in Electronics as can be seen from Serial No.11 of the blue print again, as stated supra, the total marks which the question carries depend upon the type or pattern of the question on that subject. Nobody can insist validly that a question shall invariably be given on that subject. Omission to set a question on a particular subject cannot validly be referred as a deviation, nor anybody can validly insist that a question shall be given always and in all circumstances.
15. The so-called three deviations, as discussed above, in our view cannot at all be serious as sought to be highlighted by the petitioners in these two writ petitions. It is nobody's case that the questions set in the General Science Paper-I (Physical Science) question paper are out of syllabus. Students are expected to go through the syllabus and prepare themselves for writing the examinations, and if a question out of the syllabus is given, it can be a valid ground for the grievance to be highlighted by the students. So long as it is within the syllabus, even if a different pattern of question is given in deviation to the model paper, we consider that it is not a valid ground to be highlighted by means of a Public Interest Litigation. Such type of litigation cannot even be encouraged, inasmuch as it is in derogation of the very purpose and sanctity of the examinations to be conducted by the authorities. Although it is said that the petitioners who are from Nizambad and Hyderabad are representing the student community in the State, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that there has been no complaint whatsoever from the students from any part of the State. It is not the question of adding 16 1/2 marks to every student, but it may affect the meritorious students in the total tally or marks. It is not as though the experts who have set the blue print and the model question papers were not aware of the possibility of deviations in the pattern of questions as given in the question papers. The blue print and model papers as already stated furnish a broad framework. The grievance of the petitioners in this public interest litigation cannot prima facie have any force. In the first instance, obviously it is not a case of any violation of any rule or provision of law or by-laws or regulations. No arbitrariness or bias or want of fair play can be attributed to the authorities. The grievance of the petitioners that there has been total inaction on the part of the authorities on the representation submitted by them requesting to add 16 1/2 marks to each and every student in the State who appeared for the 10th Class examination, cannot be countenanced. Only when it is a valid grievance, the inaction on the part of the respondents can be a ground for Judicial interference. Normally, Courts cannot sit in appeal -over the decision or action of the committee consisting of the experts who are well acquainted with the subjects. If such a decision or action of the experts is likely to affect the future careers of the students, Courts have some times undertaken the exercise in their anxiety to see that no injustice is caused to them. We do not, therefore, see any legitimate grievance that can be highlighted by means of this Public Interest Litigation.
16. We have perused the copies of the documents made available to us and the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the petitions and have given out anxious consideration to it to see whether any legitimate grievance can be ventilated in this case by the student community. We fail to see any such legitimate grievance in this case. However, we cannot ignore that certain amount of confusion could have been created in the minds of the students community whenever the question papers were not in accordance with the model papers, particularly when the model papers percolated to the student community on account of the publicity. Such sort of confusion and varying interpretations could have been perhaps avoided if necessary care or caution was taken. Should there be a note appended to the bottom of the blue print or the model question papers making it explicit that it is meant to guide the paper setters and teachers and it will not confer any right on anybody to claim that there shall not be any deviation in the question papers to be set on the basis of the blue print and the model question papers, all this confusion could have been avoided. We hope and trust that in future it will not recur. Inasmuch as the questions in the General Science Paper-I are within the syllabus, assuming that there is any deviation, it does not confer any legal right on the students to question the validity of examination. Therefore, the petitioners cannot validly insist on the Government or the authorities to discharge their obligation by adding 16 1/2 marks as requested. In that view of the matter, we cannot legitimately direct the authorities to add the marks as requested by the petitioners.
17. As regards the other reliefs, no arguments have been addressed before us and there is no need to deal with them.
18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any legitimate ground to interfere by directing the authorities to add 16 1/2 marks or even more as claimed in the writ petitions which, in our view, may in turn create any amount of confusion and chaos in the matter than setting the clock right.
19. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed subject to the observations made in the Judgment in regard to question No.21. No costs.