Madras High Court
Minor K.Karthik vs Directorate Of Government Education on 18 September, 2015
Author: M.M. Sundresh
Bench: M.M. Sundresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 18.09.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH W.P.No.18943 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 Minor K.Karthik ... Petitioner Vs - Directorate of Government Education, Represented by its Director of Government Examination, DPI Campus, Chennai ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to revaluate the Answer Sheet of the petitioner in the Biology (Zoology) Examination conducted in March 2015 and allot two marks towards Question Number 27 Section B and Question Number 37 in Section D. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : Mr. S.Pattabiraman Govt. Advocate ORDER
The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to revaluate the Answer Sheet of the petitioner in the Biology (Zoology) Examination conducted in March 2015 and allot two marks towards Question Number 27, Section B and Question Number 37 in Section D.
2. Petitioner wrote High Secondary Examination with Registration No.377971 and secured 195/200 in Biology subject.
3. The petitioner admittedly, made an application seeking revaluation on 11.06.2015. As per the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.77, School Education (V1) Department, dated 07.05.2001, the candidate is required to apply within the prescribed time notified by the Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai-6. As per the proceedings dated 28.5.2015, the Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai-6 has fixed the last date as 01.06.2015 at 5.00 p.m. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner in paragraph 10 has also stated as follows:
I state that the respondent refused to consider the same stating that the last date for requesting revaluation was 11.06.2015. I am left in a fix. While it is evident that rectification of the errors by the respondent would enable my son to continue his education in his desired field, I am being thwarted by technicalities and circumstance.
4. The writ petition was filed on 26.6.2015. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner's answer sheet has been revaluated and accordingly, the marks awarded earlier was found to be correct.
5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the grievance of the petitioner is only with question Nos. 27 and 39. Insofar as the question No.27 is concerned, the petitioner has given the right answer. Question No.27, key answer and answer of the petitioner which are extracted in paragraph 7 of the affidavit are reproduced hereunder:
Question Key Answer Answer of the Petitioner Question 27 Section B: Uses of Urine Analysis (3 marks) Score 2/3 Find out the state of the kidneys and the urinary tract and gather information about metabolic or systemic abnormalities or To diagnose-diabetes or jaundice To find out the state of kidney and urinary tract *To diagnose the metabolic or systemic abnormalities Question 37 Section D:
What is Endoscopy?
Explain its Techniques. (5 Marks) Score 4/5 Endoscopy definition 2 marks Endoscopy techniques explanation 3 marks Endoscopy is the method of examining the interior of body cavity or hollow organ by using an endoscope.
It is a technique of entering the narrow flexible fibre optic instrument that conducts light into the inner body. Thus the inner organs and regions of the body are viewed from outside. Endoscopy is a method of minimally invasive approach to surgery of various parts. It accomplishes traditional surgical goal while delivering less pain and make the patient happier. This procedure does not require hospital admission and acute care. Outpatient procedure performed at the hospital and allow the patient to go home or return to work within a short period Types Colonscopy: Colon and large intestine Proctoscopy: Rectum and sigmoid colon Colpscopy: Vagina and Cervix Laryngoscopy: Larynx or voice box Thoracoscopy: Pleura, Plural space, pleural fluid, mediatinum and pericardium
6. The submissions of the petitioner are to the effect that question No.27 as well as question No.37 have been rightly answered. Insofar as question No.27 is concerned, merely because the petitioner has not given the third answer, one mark cannot be reduced. Similarly, insofar as question No.37 is concerned, the non mentioning of natural pace maker of heart by defining would not make the answer incorrect.
7. The learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that the revaluation has been done during the pendency of the writ petition. In reply to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he submitted that the said exercise cannot be termed as revaluation dehors the last date fixed. For question No.27, the petitioner has given only two answers out of three and similarly for question No.37, the definition of natural pace maker of heart as mentioned in Tamil Nadu Textbook Corporation has not been mentioned. Accordingly, one mark has been reduced for question Nos.27 and 37 respectively.
8. The fact that the petitioner has made an application for revaluation after the cut off date, i.e., 01.06.2015 is not in dispute. Admittedly, the request of the petitioner was not considered before the filing of the writ petition. The fact that it was done during the pendency of the writ petition cannot give any right to the petitioner contrary to the proceedings of the Directorate of Government Examinations dated 28.5.2015. In other words, the petitioner cannot be placed better than the other students. A uniform procedure has been followed. If the petitioner's case is considered as against other students for revalulation that will lead to arbitrariness. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having not availed the opportunity given to him in making the application belatedly, cannot seek for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reevaluate the answer sheet.
9. Coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, question No.27 got three answers and the petitioner has given only two answers. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to make a distinction with the key answer given by stating that it only says 'or'. In other words, either the answer given by the petitioner is correct or in the alternative. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submissions. The answer is very clear as it only says about uses of urine analysis. For three different answers, three marks have been given whereas the petitioner has answered only two. The answer after 'or' is the third answer. Thus, the submission made in this regard cannot be accepted.
10. As far as Question No.37 is concerned, the prescribed text book has defined Artificial Pacemaker in the following manner:
8. Artificial Pacemaker A pacemaker is a small, battery-operated electronic device, which is inserted under the skin to help the heart to beat regularly and an appropriate rate. The purpose of an artificial pacemaker is to stimulate the heart when either the heart's natural pacemaker is not fast enough or if there are blocks in the heart's electrical conduction system, preventing the propagation of electrical impulses from the natural pacemaker to the ventricles.
Natural Pacemaker of heart The sinus node (sinoatrial node), (1.5 cm long, 3 mm wide muscle), is situated on the right wall of the right atrium (auricle). It is known as the natural pacemaker of mammalian heart.
Components of an Artificial Pacemaker A pacemaker generally has two parts, the generator and the leads. The generator contains the battery and the information to regulate the heartbeat. The leads are wires that go from the generator through a large vein to the heart, where the wires are anchored. The leads send electrical impulses to the heart. Most pacemakers run on lithium batteries. The battery can last for 7-8 years. It will be routinely monitored by health care professional M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
kua and replaced when necessary. The pacemaker or generators have become smaller over the years and often weigh less than 30 grams.
11. The expert, who was present before this Court has also given his opinion in the same manner justifying the reason for not awarding full marks. When all other students can understand the question correctly, this Court cannot take a different view by accepting a solitary view. More so, the power of judicial review in academic matters is rather limited. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.
12. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No 18.09.2015
kua
To
Directorate of Government Education,
Represented by its
Director of Government Examination,
DPI Campus, Chennai
W.P.No.18943 of 2015