Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kinkar Prosad Dolai vs West Bengal Board Of on 4 April, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
4.4.2019 Court No. 19 Item No. 161 Ashoke W.P. 7585(W) of 2018 Kinkar Prosad Dolai
-versus-
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar.
... For the Petitioner.
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, ... For the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
The petitioner, appeared for Madhyamik Pariksha in 2017 from Manbazar Girls High School. The petitioner daughter passed the said examination with 'Star' marks. She was awarded 90% marks in most of the subjects, except English. In English, the petitioner was awarded 64 marks. Thereafter, the answer scripts in English was asked for under the Right to Information Act. The answer script was supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner through her learned advocate made a representation before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dated March 10, 2018 enquiring as to why the authorities had not awarded marks properly in certain answers. The Board increased 10 marks in the said subject English upon re-evaluation. As such, the petitioner, Jolly Dolai, was awarded 74 marks in English, instead of 64 marks, after considering the representation of the petitioner on the basis of the points raised by the petitioner on perusal of the answer script which was obtained under the Right to Information Act.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that though 10 marks were added pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, but she was entitled to get 12 more marks. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was not intimated as to which answers were re- evaluated and how and in what manner the marks have been increased. It is further submitted by the petitioner that proper re-evaluation of marks with respect to some answers were still not done though the points were taken in the demand of justice.
The learned advocate for the Board submits that as per Rule 14 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Examination and Regulation, 2011 the petitioner was not entitled to apply for review, but she was entitled for scrutiny of her answer scripts within thirty days from the date of publication of the result.
The learned advocate for the Board submits that as the Board thought it fit and proper to consider the case of the petitioner, upon receipt of her representation after the supply of answer scripts to her, the answer script of the petitioner had been re-evaluated for which 10 marks were increased, i.e. 74 marks were allotted in English paper in place of 64. According to the learned advocate for the Board there were no rules permitting second re-evaluation of the answer scripts. Moreover, the answer scripts were not preserved beyond a certain period.
This writ petition is based on the self assessment of the performance of the petitioner. After re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the marks of the petitioner were increased, inspite of that the petitioner feels she was eligible for 12 more marks, based on her own assessment. The petitioner has not annexed any expert opinion of a teacher or an answer module in order to substantiate her claim.
Under such circumstances, no further order can be passed in the writ petition.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply before the concerned authority for supply of the re-evaluate answer script in order to ascertain the method followed by the authorities in re-evaluating the marks of the petitioner and in awarding 10 additional marks.
If such application for the answer script is made, the same should be supplied to the petitioner unless the same has been destroyed in the mean time.
The writ petition is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) 1 3