Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3) On inspection and receipt of the certified true copy of the said three answer scripts, it appeared to the petitioners' son that his answer scripts in the said three subjects were not properly evaluated and as such the marks which he would have ordinarily received on a proper evaluation of the answer scripts were not given to him. Thus, the prayer for re-evaluation has been made.

4) The learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the answer scripts of the said three subject, the photocopies of the certified true copies whereof are annexed to the writ petition, contended that on a proper evaluation of the answers given by the petitioner's son in the three subjects, he would have got higher marks than awarded and his marks in the other subjects also suggest so. He also tried to make out a case that some of the questions are in parts and answers have also been given in parts but the marking has not been done on the basis of part wise answers but an overall marks have been awarded. Marks should have been awarded to the answers given to each part of the question separately instead of treating the answers as a whole and having not done so less marks have been awarded. The aggregate of part marks if allotted could have been more than the overall marks for the answer as awarded. He also tried to make out a point that even when a part of the question has been answered correctly and the examiner has given a tick against such answer then also full marks has not been awarded for such correct answer. As an example, he refers to a part question bearing two marks. He submits that despite the answer being correct and the examiner has given a tick against such answer, the marks awarded is one out of two whereas it should have been two out of two. The petitioner's son ought to have been awarded full marks i.e. two out of two marks for such correct answer which cannot be cured by scrutiny but by re-evaluation. Showing these discrepancies, the petitioner's advocate submits that re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidate should be made and correct marks on such re-evaluation should be awarded.

5) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the respondent No.4, who also represents respondent No.2 to 3 respectively, being the President and Secretary of the said Board by referring to Regulations 14(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Examination) Regulations, 2001 contends that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is not permissible in a case of a successful candidate like the petitioner's son. He further contends, even if one equates re-evaluation with the term "re-examination" as provided in Regulation 14(2), the answer scripts of a successful candidate cannot be re-evaluated. Only scrutiny is permitted under the said Regulation and that has been allowed. In fact following the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2011(8) SCC 497, the said advocate contends that inspection of the answer scripts has been given and even the certified true copy of the said answer scripts have also been provided.

6) He further submits that marks in respect of the answers written by the petitioner's son in Bengali, History and Geography, answer scripts has been awarded by an examiner, who is an expert by following the procedure adopted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for evaluating the answer scripts. The Board while evaluating the answer scripts in the Examination held on 2016, has adopted a scientific procedure with all checks and balances. The evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner's son in the said three subjects has been properly and correctly done and as such there is also no scope of re- evaluation. According to the said advocate even if one accepts for the sake of argument that there is no embargo in the said Regulations in re- evaluation of the answer scripts of a successful candidate then also such exercise is practically impossible as it may lead to innumerable successful candidates asking for re-evaluation which mechanism is not available with the Board. He further submits that there is always a scope of awarding different marks to a particular answer, if the same is evaluated by two different teachers. The Board in order to minimise such difference undergo a procedure. It is also not practically possible to re-evaluate answer scripts of all candidates in respect of an examination like the Madhyamik Pariksha wherein several lakhs of candidates appear in a year, that is why the Regulations have been made so that only scrutiny is permitted for successful candidates. If re- evaluation is allowed, the examiner who will re-evaluate the answer script may even award less marks than that has been awarded. The petitioner in that case will not accept the marks on re-evaluation and it will be then a long drawn dispute.

"The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice- Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the Judgment impugned should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority. In Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Another (2004) 13 SCC 383, the respondent No.1, i.e., Pravas Ranjan Panda appeared in the High School Certificate Examination, 2003 as a regular candidate. He passed the said examination securing about 90% marks. He filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that he had answered all the questions correctly without committing any mistake and, therefore, deserved full marks in each paper, but due to carelessness and negligence of the Board in appointing inexperienced and unqualified examiners in certain papers, low marks had been awarded to him due to which he lost his chance of being within the first ten examinees in the HSC Examination, 2003. A prayer was made for re-evaluation of his answer book. The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Board to scrutinize and recheck the answer scripts of examinees securing 90% and above marks in aggregate in HSC Examination 2003 and if there was any change or variation in the marks the petitioner should be informed accordingly. The candidates secured less than 90% of marks in aggregate who had applied for rechecking and readdition of marks in certain answer papers had to be considered in accordance with the resolution of Board for rechecking of marks".