Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"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 the 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 rule 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 mala fides 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.

(c)Ascertainment of mala fides and tampering depends on facts of the case and for that purpose, if necessary, the answer script may be summoned.

(d)Ascertainment of "gross negligence resulting in injustice" is a more difficult exercise. A student who has consistently secured very high marks in a subject in the last few years examinations, is shown to have failed in such subject, the Court may consider it to be prima facie evidence of such negligence and call for the answer-scripts. (The mere fact that a student feels that he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannot be ground to call for answer scripts). On securing the answer-script, the Court may examine it or take the assistance of a qualified teacher to examine it. If the Court finds any gross negligence resulting in injustice which shocks its judicial conscience, it may direct re-valuation.

(e)But change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot 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 cannot 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 s part of the valuation system, where thousands or lacs of answer scripts are evaluated by hundreds or thousands of evaluators. Therefore, even where the Court secures the answer script and examines it or gets it examined by an independent teachers, 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, mala fides tampering or gross negligence (and not small or negligible errors or perceptional changes) is a condition precedent for ordering re-valuation."