MINOR P.ANAND Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN accomplished student, represented by a despondent father, is before this Court challenging the injustice meted out to him by the system.

(2.) THE petitioner, then a minor, was a candidate who appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination 2005 (Science), conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, General Education Department, State of Kerala. The publication of results on the internet showed the petitioner having secured 579 marks. However, on the next day in the newspapers when the results were published, the petitioner was surprised, in so far as the 1st rank holders were two in number, having secured 580 marks, the 2nd rank holder was another, who secured 579 marks, and at the 3rd rank were three students, who had secured 578 marks. Though the petitioner was shown to have secured 579 marks, his name did not figure in the top ranks. The petitioner's father immediately approached the Director, Board of Higher Secondary Examination with Exhibit P4, pointing out the anomaly. There was no response. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, represented by the father, was before this Court in the year 2005 itself, with the above writ petition. Subsequent to the writ petition the petitioner was issued with a letter dated 18.06.2005 informing him that after the results are tabulated, the answer papers of the top 30 - 35 candidates are taken up for revaluation, by additional chief examiners and the average of the two revaluations is awarded to the candidate. The petitioner was also informed that the mistake occurred due to to a technical snag and in any event the notification contained a disclaimer clause.

(3.) LOOKING at the facts; immediately after the filing of the writ petition, the State filed a counter affidavit, affirmed by the Administrative Officer, Directorate of Higher Secondary Education claiming immunity relying on the disclaimer and also alleging a "technical snag". The State can definitely claim immunity under the disclaimer clause, but cannot disown the rank inefficiency of their own. Technical snag again is not "act of god" and still remains to be human error. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the enormity of the task in publishing the results of higher secondary exams, in the most literate and one of the most populous States. But a little more care and a lot more caution, when children are ranked and some others branded, is not asking for too much. The records reveal that often the student was referred to as P. Manoj instead of P.Anand by the officials of the department. The counter affidavit dated 8.7.2005 also in its body marks three Exhibits as I, II and III, but none are seen produced.