Madras High Court
V.J. Sharmi vs The Secretary, Selection Committee, ... on 12 December, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR2002MAD269, (2002)1MLJ597
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1.10.2001, passed in W.P.No. 15948 of 2001. The appellant appeared for the Higher Secondary Examinations for the academic year 2000-2001, with Registration No.674167. She is an aspirant to join Medical Course. In the Biology subject, she has secured 190 out of 200. According to her, she is a bright student, and having obtained 195 and 198 marks out of 200 in the disciplines of Physics and Chemistry respectively, her case is that the Biology paper written by her had not been evaluated properly, and she ought to have got more marks. She applied for the re-valuation, and on re-valuation, she was awarded 3 marks more in the said discipline of Biology, making the total 193 out of 200. Her aggregate marks which counts for medical admission, and which were 288.16, before re-valuation, shot up to 289.66 after re-valuation. But still she was unsatisfied, and was of the opinion that the valuation had not been done correctly, and she expected some more marks. Then she has filed the writ petition, and on filing writ petition, the papers were got further re-valuated as per the order of the learned single Judge. In the further re-valuation pursuant to the court's directives, though the appellant gained marks for some questions, yet for some questions the marks were reduced. For questions 11 and 12, which carry one mark each, she scored one mark each, but in original valuation, she could not secure any marks. For questions 28 and 31 carrying 5 marks each, she scored 4 marks each. For questions 35(b) carrying 10 marks, she scored 4. For questions 17 and 25 carrying 2 marks each, she has secured full 2 marks each. After re-valuation while there is no change, insofar as the questions 11, 12,28,31,17 and 25 are concerned, whereas 3 marks more were awarded as against questions 35(b), and that is how pre-valuation total of 190 has risen to 193 after re-valuation. In the second re-valuation made by the expert teacher, pursuant to the court orders, while there is no change as against questions 11, 12, 28, 31, 35(b) are concerned, but as against question 17 one mark was reduced out of the "2" secured already, and insofar as, question 25 is concerned "0" mark was awarded, thus losing 2 marks which were previously secured. That resulted in reduction in marks from 193 secured in re-valuation, to 192 on further re-valuation by the expert teacher, pursuant to the court orders.
2. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that only questions against which less marks were scored ought to have been valued, and there was no jurisdiction for the authorities to re-value all the questions, against which there was no complaint by the appellant. In any event, the learned Senior Counsel submits that re-valuation being a beneficial provision, has application only for benefiting and not for losing. To say concisely, what the learned Senior Counsel argues is that only questions 11 and 12 ought to have been re-valued, and not the questions 17 and 25, as the appellant had secured Ml marks of 2 each, and the said marks ought not to have been reduced.
3. The learned Government Pleader, countering the arguments of the learned senior counsel, submits that the Scheme of Re-valuation does not permit dissection of the questions, and that all questions have to be re-valued, and it was at the instance of the appellant, the paper was re-valued, and the appellant having not been satisfied with the revaluation approached the court and sought for the court's directive to again re-value the answer paper, and on reduction of the marks, she cannot turn back and question its propriety.
4. Most of the States in the country are not having the facility of revaluation of answer scripts and only re-totalling is provided. But in the State of Tamil Nadu, a Scheme of revaluation has been introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 77, School Education Department dated 7.5.2001. As per the above Governmental Order, students who appeared for Higher Secondary Examination and hitherto were permitted to apply for re-totalling of marks, have now been permitted to apply and get Xerox copies of their answer scripts besides allowing them to apply for revaluation of Optional Subjects like Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. This is made effective for the students, who had appeared for Higher Secondary examination during March, 2001. Several conditions have been enumerated enabling the students to have their answer scripts revaluated. The Scheme has to be read and understood as a whole and while doing so, we derive the meaning that while every student is entitled to have the answer scripts of the examination in any of the subjects mentioned above revaluated, there is no enabling provision for any student to choose only particular answers to be revaluated. The revaluation is not in bits but it is for all the answers in the examination in that discipline, as a whole. There is no scope to dissect the Scheme and allow a student to choose only some answers to be revaluated. It is different thing if some of the answers have not been valued at all and no marks assigned as against them. In that case, a student may ask those questions to be valued and such answers do not come within the purview of 'revaluation'. But in the instant case, that question does not arise as all the answers have been valued and in the first valuation, for two answers for the question Nos. 11 and 12, zero marks were awarded but on revaluation, full marks of one each as against those questions, have been awarded. The contention of Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel, that only those answers ought to be revaluated and not all other answers, and that in any event, the Scheme being beneficial to the student, it has to be construed that only increase in marks should be counted and there cannot be any decrease of the marks originally allotted, cannot be countenanced for the reason that there is no right for any student to have only some of the answers revaluated. The facility given by the State is by an executive order and which is traceable to Article 162 of the Indian Constitution and students are given choice to apply for revaluation as a whole and cannot ask only a particular answer to be revaluated. There is no provision for part-wise revaluation. In fact, as per the Scheme, the appellant has sought for revaluation, which is in format and that is for whole. In this context, it is relevant to state that it is not within the realm of the Courts to examine the merits and demerits of a policy laid down by the Government. It is apt to state what the Apex Court has stated in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth Etc. , which laid down three legal principles to test the reasonableness or otherwise of an education policy. Those are:
i) whether the provisions of such regulations fall within the scope and ambit of the power conferred by the statute on the delegate;
(ii) whether the rules/regulations framed by the delegate are to any extent inconsistent with the provisions of the parent enactment; and lastly,
(iii) whether they infringe any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution.
The Governmental Order referred to above is well within the above staled legal principles.
5. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P. Nos. 16751 and 16752 of 2001 are closed.