Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of M.P. (AIR 2005 M.P. 152) summarized the principles to be applied in the case of revaluation, in paragraph 7 of the report. It reads as follows:

"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 're-totalling' of marks or 'rechecking the results' in the Rules does not entitle a student to seek re-Valuation.

(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."