Bombay High Court
Aathrava S/O Abhay Rewatkar vs Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... on 21 September, 2020
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Nitin B. Suryawanshi
1 WP-8360-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 8360 OF 2020
AATHRAVA S/O ABHAY REWATKAR ...VS... MAHARASHTRA STATE
BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION AND
ANOTHER
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri. A. M. Sudame, Advocate for the Petitioner
Smt. M. A. Barabade, AGP for respondent/State
Shri. A. Parchure, Advocate for respondents
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND N. B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ.
DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER , 2020.
Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and learned counsel appearing for the parties stated that the audio and visual quality was clear and proper.
2. The challenge raised in the writ petition is with regard to the manner in which the Chemistry and Physics answer sheets of the petitioner who had appeared for the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination conducted by the respondents in Summer-2020 have been evaluated. According to the petitioner, while answering question no. 1 in Section A in the subject of Chemistry, though the petitioner had given correct answers the said question has not been evaluated. According to the petitioner, though under the general instructions as contained in the examination paper, the manner of giving the correct answer was stated the same is not mandatory to directory in nature. Similar is the position with regard to the subject of Physics. It is submitted that actual answers given have to be seen and not the form in which they have been given. When the answers are evaluated in the manner suggested by the ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 22:40:31 ::: 1 WP-8360-20.odt petitioner, his aggregate marks are liable to be increased. Placing reliance upon the decision in (2018) 2 SCC 357 [RAN VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS]., it is submitted that in absence of any consequence being provided for not answering the question as per the general instructions, the same should be treated as directory.
3. On behalf of the respondents, reply has been filed opposing the aforesaid contentions. It has been stated that direction no. 7 in the general instructions is clear and as the answers have not been written in the manner as prescribed, the same have not been evaluated. Moreover, it is submitted that the answer papers of the petitioner were re-evaluated and no change in marks therein was found. It is thus submitted that the prayer made in the writ petition is not liable to be granted.
4. On 18.09.2020, we had heard the learned counsel for the parties and it was put to the counsel for the respondents as to whether question no. 1 in the subject of Chemistry had been duly evaluated. This was for the reason that in the documents of re- evaluation, the same was not shown who have been re-evaluated. Today Pursis has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that on 18.09.2020, the answer sheets of the petitioner were again gone through by the re-evaluation Committee. In view of the direction no. 7, no marks were awarded for said question no. 1.
5. Heard. In the question paper, general instructions to examinees have been provided and instruction no. 7 reads as under:
(7) For each MCQ, correct answer must be written along with its alphabet, e.g. (a).........../(b.........../
(c)............./(d)............. etc. ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 22:40:31 ::: 1 WP-8360-20.odt
6. On a plain reading of this instruction, it is clear that the manner in which the answer was to be written has been clearly stated. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not write the answers in the manner as prescribed by the general instructions. It is for that reason that the respondents have not granted any marks towards that question. We find that when the students were put notice in the question paper itself as to the manner in which the answer was required to be written, a deviation there from would obviously entail the consequences of not being awarded any marks as the answer was given not as per the standard instructions.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that in absence of any consequences being stipulated, general instructions cannot be treated as mandatory cannot be accepted. The direction is clear and it cannot give rise to any confusion.
8. The reliance placed on the decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) does not assist case of the petitioner. After considering the observations in paragraph 30 thereof, we are inclined to apply the analogy as quoted in Para 30.5. In the present case since the instruction number 7 was clear, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE/TAMBE ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 22:40:31 :::