Madras High Court
Minor Madhavi Represented vs The Secretary on 9 September, 2008
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K.Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09 - 09-2008
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN
W.P.NO.15534 OF 2008
Minor Madhavi represented
by7 father and natural guardian
Ganesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
State Board of School Examination,
Tamil NJadu,
Chennai-6.
2. The Director of Government examinations,
Madras 6
3. The Secretary,
Selection Committee,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Madras-10. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to issue certificate taking into consideration the highest marks awarded by the respondents and consequently direct the issuance of a certificate to the petitioner containing the following marks
S.No. Subject Marks
1 Physics 195(50+145)
2 Chemistry 190(50+140)
3 Biology 194(50+144)
For Petitioner:Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan
for Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents:Ms. Dakshiyani Reddy
Government Advocate
------
O R D E R
I.The Cause for lis:
Just like Athletes, blazing the cinder tracks give a new relevance to nano-seconds, the students that enter into professional courses make a new relevance to the decimals in the marks. The writ petition contains a challenge to the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Higher Secondary (10+2) examination on a revaluation, which reduced her total from 1131 to 1129.
2. The student, was an aspirant for entry into the medical course and the marks secured by her in Physics,Chemistry and Biology were most relevant when she was dissatisfied with the marks as declared, she had sought for providing her with answer sheets in the three subjects and also sought for revaluation on the basis of her own assessment about the possible mistakes in the valuation. The marks secured by her as entered originally and the marks that were assigned to her after the correction by revaluation were as under:
Marks originally marks after obtained revaluation Physics 195 194 Chemistry 188 190 Biology 194 191
3. While the petitioner seemed to be satisfied with the increase in the marks that she had obtained in Chemistry by revaluation, she was chagrined in the reduction of 1 mark in Physics and 3 marks in Biology. Consequently, two marks that she obtained in addition were more than off-set by reduction of 4 marks in Physics and Biology.
Power of revaluation:
4. There is inherently no right for any student to seek a revaluation of the answer sheets. But Courts have always been alive to reality that in these days of acute competition, any mistake in the valuation would deflect the student's career to undesired course of study and have come to the assistance of students even then they were no specific provisions. This Court exercised such a power in Minor S.Suren rep. by father Vs. The Director of Government Examination and others reported in 1995 (2) LW129 where this Court ordered revaluation of answer sheets. In Parent Forum for Meaningful Education and others Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 44, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court responded to a plea on behalf of the petitioners and said that the Board of examination must consider a claim for revaluation of answer papers in instances where there existed such justification. The Bench said "after all, the entire examination system is for assessing the merits of the students and no examination system which is unfair to the students can be allowed to exist."
5. In the case of Tamil Nadu, a scheme of revaluation was introduced by G.O.Ms.No.77, School Education Department dated 7.5.2001. As per the said G.O., the students who appeared for higher secondary examination and hitherto applied for re-totaling of marks were permitted to apply and get copies of their answer script, besides allowing them to apply for revaluation of optional subjects like Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
6. This facility is intended to provide for transparency and fairness to the method of evaluation and bring personal responsibility to the examiners that they acted fairly in the matter of valuation of answer sheets. Evidently, it is this scheme which has made possible the petitioner to apply for revaluation of the answer sheets in all the three principal subjects, which are relevant for the child to be considered for admission into the professional course.
III. The binding nature of rules and extent of judicial review:
7. The right to obtain revaluation of answer sheets shall be exercised within the boundaries set forth under the rules themselves and it would not be possible to traverse beyond the rules and bring in a mode of revaluation according to the grievance of each candidates.
8. The Division Bench of this Court in B.Rajappa Vs. The Additional Controller of Examination, University of Madras reported in AIR 1989 Madras 242 said, "there is no dispute over the proposition that a candidate, sitting for examinations conducted by any University has not got a fundamental right to insist for revaluation of his papers. This is a matter that has got to be settled by the rules governing the examination in question. Once the rules got formulated, it is not possible to travel beyond the rules and bring in a mode of revaluation as each individual candidate, according to the scope of his grievances, would envisage, support and insist".
9. The validity of the scheme for revaluation introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu came to be challenged in proceedings that culminated in the decision V.J.Sharmi Vs. Secretary, Selection Committee Chennai and another reported in AIR 2002 Madras 269. When the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the particular provision in the scheme which enabled the student to apply for revaluation it said, "there is no scope to dissect the scheme and allow a student to choose only some answers to be revalued. It is different thing if some of the answers, have not been valued and no marks assigned to them 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". They were repelling a contention placed on behalf of the student that particular answers may alone be valued and not the entire paper which in the case had resulted in securing less marks than the original marks obtained, which was obviously inconvenient to the student. This is stated only to bring home the point that a student on whose behalf an application is made for revaluation will be bound by a scheme and cannot insist that particular revaluation when done and not found fruitful and even resulted in awarding of less marks, such a candidate cannot make a volte face and seek that the marks where there have been an increase would alone be retained and whichever paper on revaluation resulted in less marks, it can be discarded and the original marks themselves should be retained.
10. Applying the proposition to the facts, in this case, the revaluation has resulted, as pointed out already, an increase of two marks in Chemistry, reduction of three marks in Biology and reduction of one mark in Physics. The prayer in the writ petition is therefore that the increase in mark to 190 in chemistry subject should be taken, while the marks which were originally awarded as 195 in Physics and 194 of Biology should be retained. On a revaluation, the overall aggregate has fallen from 1131 to 1129. The petitioner had the benefit of answer sheets of her daughter in his hand and therefore the specific averments were made in the affidavit that revaluation was wrongly made with particular reference to two questions in Bio-zoology paper viz. question Nos.31 and 34. According to the petitioner, the revaluation which resulted in reduction of marks in Physics was on account of a wrong valuation of question No.64. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, finding the technical nature of questions that were involved and the kind of answers that were elicited, thought it appropriate to appoint another expert to evaluate the papers in Physics and Bio-zoology in respect of the particular questions and answers which were referred to in the affidavit in support of the writ petition. Unfortunately for the petitioner's dughter, the second revaluation reduced the marks still further and therefore the petitioner could not have any relief on the basis of revaluation. It was therefore argued that the increase in marks in Chemistry alone should be taken and the marks in Physics and Bio-zoology should be retained as it was originally given. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner referred me to the questions and the response answers in the text book and the answers actually given by the petitioner's daughter, as also the mode of evaluation effected by the experts, before filing the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner admitted to the boundaries within which the judicial review can traverse in a matters like this. The difference between the marks originally awarded and the marks that were subsequently given on the basis of valuation, was a difference in the aggregate by two marks and in terms of individual subjects, the maximum difference was in bio-zoology where initially 194 marks had been given which had fallen 191 on revaluation. In Chemistry and Physics, it was more by two and less by one respectively on revaluation. The key answers to respective questions have also been provided to test the correctness of valuation. The Committee which has revalued the answer sheets has also given its justification for marks assigned on revaluation and given its comments about the answers given by the candidate with reference to the key answers. On going through the same, I find there is literally no scope for intervention. The Supreme Court has laid down in the President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another Vs. D.Suvanakar & another reported in 2006 (12) SCALE 24 at page 28 "It is true that the valuation of two persons cannot be equal on golden scales,but wide variation would affect the credibility of the system of valuation. If for the same answer one candidate gets higher marks than another, that would be arbitrary. As indicated above, the scope for interference in matters of valuation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in valuation, the court (could) step in".
IV No Scope for substituting experts' re-valuation on facts disclosed:
11. The difference in marks in this case is three or less than three and it is difficult to be convinced that the valuation has not been done correctly on the basis of the data available. In Maharashtra S.B.O.S. and H.S.Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 , the Supreme Court held, while deprecating the practice of Court's substituting their own views in the place of professional men,"as has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that the Court is extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters, in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience and actually day-to-day working on educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and gross root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view, as opposed to pragmatic one were to be propounded'.
12. In B.Shylaja Vs. Secretary (2004 WLR P.639) this High Court dealt with the extraordinary situation where there were hundred of writ petitions filed at the instance of affected students when several questions had been asked which were outside the syllabus in Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination, 2004. The contentions were also that the key answers given were themselves wrong or there could have been more than one set of correct options for answers and consequently the valuation proved defective. The Court found prima facie material to be convinced of the defects in the key answers when the important question to be resolved was whether even questions should be deleted from consideration or whether marks should be awarded to the students who had indicated any of the correct options. The reliance by the counsel on this was to bring support to his argument that it was open for the Court to re-examine the valuation made subsequently. Such an exercise in my view simply does not avail here, only because it is nobody's case that key answers were wrong and the answers given could have been evaluated differently without reference to the key answers. As pointed out already, this was a case where the Court granted the extraordinary relief of further revaluation after the writ petition was filed and only when further revaluation did not improve the case of the petitioner any better the petitioner turns the tables on the respondent and contends that the child was being victimised by awarding lesser marks for the only reason that revaluation had been sought for. Such a contention flies in the face of higher marks having been awarded in Chemistry. If the attempt is to victimise, there could have been no scope for awarding higher marks in one subject alone. I am firmly of the view that the revaluation of the papers have been correctly undertaken and there is no room for assailing the technical exercise undertaken by the experts.
V. Comparison of students' answers with key answers and answers in text books:
13. While it is possible to stave off any further appraisal after a report of the expert committee for revaluation and let the matter reside there without undertaking any further task of examining the actual answers given by the student, I undertake this task only to satisfy the judicial conscience that a child that has burnt the midnight oil does not fee betrayed that there has been a reluctance of judicial authority to advert to core complaint that her correct answers have not been properly valued. I have gone through the answers with reference to the answers as found in the text books and the key answers provided. I am satisfied that the revaluation has been done correctly and there is nothing amiss in the exercise undertaken. To wit, to a five marks question in Section 'C' of Part II Zoology, the question is to "give an account of immuno deficiency disease". The expected answer is referred to as S.C.I.D (Servere Combined Immuno Deficiency) and AIDS under the chapter "immuno deficiency diseases". SCID itself is one of the genetic defects and the student has therefore focused her attention to what is given in the text book about genetic defects. The expected answer includes reference to defect leading to "Adenosine deaminose deficiency and that an affected individual dies at an early age". While the student has not made any specific mention about the above, the key answer also states SCID is characterised by very low number of circulating thymocytes, while the student has referred to the disease as resulting in low number of circulating lymphocytes; that the syndrome is also called as Bubbly boy syndrome; that bone marrow transplantation is a possible cure. The focus of the student has been to address the answer as a genetic disease which is a separate chapter in the text book. The valuer has not thought it fit to award any mark apart from the correct identification of SCID as one of immuno deficiency disease and hence has awarded half a mark. Another portion of the same question relating to AIDS which has been correctly answered have been awarded with full marks.
14. As regards question 34, which is to enumerate the "events involved in the function of the Human heart", the text book and the key answer expect four distinct points. They include" the origin and conduction of heart beat" which makes a special mention of S.A.Node as capable of generating action potential and stimulating the A.V.Node; A.V.Node conducts the stimulus to bundle of His with further reference to PURKINJIE FIBRES. The answer sheet of the student does not bring out this aspect at all except in the diagram and while referring to the cardiac cycle which is one of the subheadings, full mark has been awarded to the student. The mode of assessment made is unexceptional and although the student may have understood the concept well, she has not put forth the matter with the emphasis on a sub heading under 'origin and conduction of heart beat. It is perhaps possible that another examiner mayhave valued differently and awarded full marks but it is quite different from saying that the same examiner has valued the same answers of different students differently. In the former, there could be no complaint of discrimination of arbitrariness,; in the latter, there is discrimination. We are dealing with a situation akin to the former.
15. As regards the answer sheet in physics, my attention was dawn to Question No.64, that is assigned 10 marks. It requires the student to 'deduce the relation for the Magnetic Induction at a point along the axis of a circular coin carrying current". The text book and the key answers require specific formula for Biot-Sarvat law. It states the basic formula to be O IdI sin O d/B.= -------- ----------
4 II r The student has not referred to SinO in the numerator and hence the valuer has not given full marks and has deducted one mark. It is contended before me that sinO = 1, if O =90, therefore the value being 1, its presence in the numerator will not make any difference. I have no doubt that this formula has to be reproduced in the manner it is conceded and it could be no sound argument that since the value of the numerator may not alter by the presence of 1 , it could be dropped out. I have taken the exercise of actually adverting to questions and answers with certain amount of trepidation but seriously enough only to assure to a young student that her passion to pursue her desired profession is not denied by any technical rules of law or dry legal logic or even imposing limitations of judicial review, but her search for justice is comprehensively addressed by getting at the root of the problem. The student ought not to feel despondent that her attempts to get higher marks, were not rewarded in the manner she conceived, but had resulted in lower marks. Things do not always turn out as one expects in life but the big lesson has come too early to her. I fervently wish, the student moves on for higher achievements, undeterred by this minor set back.
17. On a consideration of all the relevant facts, I am of the view that the petitioner can have no remedy as sought for in the writ petition and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.
VJY To
1.The Secretary, State Board of School Examination, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-6.
2. The Director of Government examinations, Madras 6
3. The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Madras 10