Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The principles in regard to revaluation may therefore be summarised thus:--

(a) A student has no right to seek revaluation of an answer-script unless the rules governing the examination specifically provide for revaluation. A provision for 'scrutiny' or 'retotalling' of marks or 'rechecking the results' in the Rules does not entitle a student to seek re-Valuation.
(b) Where the rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court will not normally direct the production of the answer scripts for its scrutiny or order revaluation. But in rare and exceptional cases where malafides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence, the Court may direct revaluation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(e) But change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment can not be a ground for re-valuation. Different examiners may evaluate the same answers differently resulting in lesser or higher marks being awarded. Re-valuation is not to be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different. In traditional examinations where the purpose is to test the knowledge, grammar, logic or reasoning, the perceptions about the answers may vary from examiner to examiner. (Of course where the examination is of objective type, where the student is merely to mark 'yes' or 'no', or choose one of the multiple answers, there can not be any difference in valuation.)
(f) While fairness in examinations is impliedly assured by the Board, exactness in valuation in individual cases can neither be assured nor be claimed. Certain margin of human error, over- sight, and perceptional difference is part of the valuation system, where thousands or lacs of answer scripts are evaluated by hundreds or thousands of evaluaters. Therefore, even where the Court secures the answer script and examines it or gets it examined by an independent teacher, re-valuation should not be ordered merely because there is some difference in valuation or because one or two answers have not been valued or have been wrongly valued. To repeat, malafides or tampering or gross negligence (and not small or negligible errors or perceptional changes) is a condition precedent for ordering re-valuation.

8. On applying the said principles, we are clear that the appellant in this case is not entitled to seek production of answer-scripts or revaluation. The appellant has not made out any malafides or tampering. The appellant has passed with an average 76% marks. The fact that he may get a few more marks, on revaluation, is not a ground for summoning the answer script and order re-valuation. Where the student has already secured a high percentage of marks, there is no case for 'gross negligence resulting in injustice'. Courts should not be swayed by sympathy and rhetoric in such matters. As observed by the Supreme Court 'pragmatism' and not 'idealism* should be the basis for interference in such matters.