Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rohan Agrawal (Minor) Thr. His Natural ... vs School Education Department on 28 January, 2020

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        W.P. No. 16591/2019
               Rohan Agrawal V/s. State of M.P. & others.
                               -: 1 :-

Indore, dated : 28.01.2020
            Petitioner by Shri Manish Yadav, Advocate.
            Respondents/State by Shri Pawan Sharma, Govt.
Advocate.
            Respondents/M.P. Board of Secondary Education,
Bhopal by Ms. Gagneet Sethi, Advocate.
                             ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking revaluation and increase of marks in Question Nos. 13 and 19 of Mathematics Subject and Question Nos. 10 and 28 of Hindi Subject.

2. The petitioner appeared in Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2019 conducted by M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal with Roll No.295345393. The result of the examination was declared, in which, the petitioner secured 74.4% marks (372 out of 500). Since the petitioner was expecting more than 75% marks, therefore, he applied for re- totalling. As the revaluation is not permissible, he obtained the answer-sheets of both the Subjects under the right to information.

3. According to the petitioner, he has answered Question Nos. 13 and 19 correctly and despite that, full marks have not been awarded to him and if he is awarded full marks, he will get 75% marks which is minimum criteria to appear in the JEE Examination. The petitioner is also aggrieved by less THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 16591/2019 Rohan Agrawal V/s. State of M.P. & others.

marks awarded in Hindi Subject, but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not pressing this petition for the marks obtained in Hindi Subject.

4. Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has attended first part of Question No.13 and answered correctly, therefore, he was entitled for full 3 marks, but he has wrongly been given 2 marks. Likewise, he answered Question No.19, but he was given 3 marks out of 4.

5. Respondent, Board of Secondary Education has filed the reply by raising preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable for seeking revaluation because there is no provision in Regulation No.119 of the Regulations. The respondent, Board has also filed the model answers of both the questions and submitted that the petitioner has adopted different method while answering the questions though his final answer may be correct, therefore, full marks have rightly not been given to him. It is the discretion of the valuer to award the marks as per the model answer. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have examined the answer-sheets of Mathematics Subject as well as model answer. The petitioner has attended Question No.13 and he has rightly proved - a x b = b x c = c x a. In the model answer, the solution is the same, but the diagram is also there. The petitioner has not made the diagram, therefore, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 16591/2019 Rohan Agrawal V/s. State of M.P. & others.

the valuer has not given one mark. He was required to explain and answer the question by way of diagram also.

7. So far as Question No.19 is concerned, the petitioner has attended the same and he was required to find out the minimum value of P = 2x + 4y subject to restraints. The petitioner answered the question by applying different method which is not in the model answer-book. In the model answer, 4 marks have been divided into different steps of final answer. In case of missing of any particular step while answering the question, the marks are not liable to be given, may be the final answer is correct. Therefore, the valuer in its discretion has rightly granted 2 marks.

8. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v/s Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth [AIR 1984 SC 1543] and in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v/s Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission [AIR 2004 SC 4116], the Apex Court has held that under the relevant rules, when there is no provision then a candidate may not be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer-book. The similar view has been taken by the Apex Court again in the case of Board of Secondary Education v/s D. Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603].

9. It is not disputed that the fate of the students depends upon the action of the teachers who evaluate his / her answer-book. In the case of Prem Ratan Agrawal v/s Board of Secondary Education [2002 (2) MPHT 570]; Board of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 16591/2019 Rohan Agrawal V/s. State of M.P. & others.

Secondary Education v/s Rajeev Gupta [ L.P.A. No.295 of 2001 - decided on 26.02.2004] this Court has held that as general rule the Court has no power to order for revaluation of the answer-sheet since the rule does not provide for revaluation, however, in extra ordinary case where student is bright and when injustice have been done, then in such cases revaluation of marks can be done specially in the case of Mathematics and Science. It is some time open to the Court to have a look at the answer sheet and compared with the model paper and if there is gross discrepancies found in the answer book then it is always open to the Court to re-evaluate the marks. The aforesaid view has been followed in the case of Priyanka Pandey v/s Secretary Board of Secondary Education [AIR 2007 MP 235]. The apex Court in the case of Sahiti v/s DR. NTR University of Health Sciences [(2009) 1 SCC 599] has held that re-evaluation of the answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible in a given case.

10. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Others, reported in 2019(2) JLJR 103 has held as under:

"18. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 16591/2019 Rohan Agrawal V/s. State of M.P. & others.

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of revaluation.

19. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks. "

11. The petitioner has not filed any document to establish that he has cleared the JEE Examination and because he could not secure 75% marks, he is not going to get admission in NIT or IIT. The petitioner has not filed his mark-sheets of Class 10 and other classes to show that he is an extraordinary intelligent and because of improper valuation his career is going to be spoiled. He has secured 74.4% marks only. Therefore, it is not an exceptional case where this Court should intervene and call the independent valuer to re-examine the answer-sheets.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 16591/2019 Rohan Agrawal V/s. State of M.P. & others.

12. In view of the above, it is clear that only in extraordinary circumstances this Court has a power to direct the Board to re-evaluate the answer books. The petitioner has failed to make out exceptional case in his favour. Hence, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Date: 2020.01.29 17:03:25 +05'30'