MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ALPANA V MEHTA Vs. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH:MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is common experience that whenever the results of public examinations conducted by School Boards and Universities or by other bodies like the Public Service Commission are announced, amidst the rejoicings of successful candidate who have secured the grade of marks anticipated by them, it also inevitably brings with it a long trail of disappointments and frustrations as the direct outcome of the nonfructuation of hopes and expectations harboured in the minds of the examinees based on the candidates' own assessment of their performance and merit. Labouring under a feeling that there has not been a proper evaluation of their performance in the examination, they would naturally like to have a revaluation of the answer books and even a personal inspection and verification of the answer books for finding out whether there has been a proper evaluation of the answers to all questions, whether the totalling of marks has been correctly done and whether there has been any tampering with the seat numbers written on the answer books and the supplementary sheets. The question canvassed before us in these appeals is whether, under law, a candidate has a right to demand such an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra vires unreasonable and void.

(2.) A number of such disappointed candidates who had appeared for the Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School Certificate public examinations conducted. by the Divisional Boards functioning under the supervision and control of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education - hereinafter called "the Board" - filed a batch of 39 Writ Petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Regn. 104 (3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 and seeking the issuance of writs directing the Board - appellant herein - to allow to the petitioners disclosure and inspection of their answer books in the public examination, the results whereof had already been published and to conduct a revaluation of such of the answer papers as the petitioners may demand after the inspection. The High Court divided the Writ Petitions into two groups, the first group consisting of cases where the right of inspection alone was claimed and the second group comprising of cases where the petitioners had claimed also the further right to demand a revaluation of the answer papers. Though all the Writ Petitions were heard together by a Division Bench consisting of V. S. Deshpande and V. A. Mohta, JJ., the two groups were disposed of by separate judgments delivered on behalf of the Bench on the same day - 28/7/1980*. The first group of Writ Petitions was disposed of by a judgment delivered by Deshpande, J. speaking on behalf of the Division Bench. Therein it was held that cl. (3) of Regn. 104 which lays down that no candidate shall be entitled to disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other documents as these are to be treated as most confidential is ultra vires on the ground of its being in excess of the regulation-making power of the Board. in the opinion of the Division Bench, the said provision cannot be said to serve any purpose of the Act, but is, on the contrary, "defeasive" of the same. It was further held that the impugned cl. (3) of Regn. 104 to the extent to which it prohibits disclosure and inspection of the answer books and other connected documents on the ground of confidentiality is unreasonable and liable to be struck down on that ground also. Accordingly, the High Court declared cl. (3) of Regn. 104 to be void and allowed the first group of Writ Petitions by directing the Board to allow inspection of the answer books asked for by the petitioners and to take consequential action under cls. (4) to (6) of Regn. 104 when found necessary.

(3.) The main judgment in the second group of Writ Petitions was delivered by Mohta, J. holding that the provision contained in cl. (1) of Regn. 104 that no revaluation of the answer books or supplement shall be done is ultra vires the regulation making power conferred by S. 36 and is also illegal and void on the ground of its being manifestly unreasonable. In the view of the learned Judge, inspection and disclosure will serve no purpose in case the further right of revaluation was denied and inasmuch as the right to disclosure and inspection had been recognised by the judgment just then delivered in the first group of Writ Petitions, the conclusion had necessarily to follow that the Board was obliged to permit revaluation as well. On this reasoning, Regulation 104 (1) insofar as it prohibits revaluation was declared void and a direction was issued to the Board that in the case of those examinees who had applied for revaluation, such facility should also be allowed., By a separate judgment, Deshpande, J. expressed serious doubts and reservations as to whether a further right of revaluation could be spelt out from the regulations, but finally agreed with the conclusion expressed by his colleagues stating thus: "rather than allow my doubts to prevail and dissent, I prefer to agree with him in the above circumstances". Aggrieved by these judgments rendered in the two groups of cases, the Board has preferred these appeals before this Court after obtaining special leave.