MASTER GEORGY K JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14.11.2003 in W.P.(C) No.33464 of 2003. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a student, who appeared for the SSLC Examination held in March, 2003. When the results were published, he was shown to have secured 572 marks out of a Maximum of 600 marks. The petitioner applied for revaluation of two papers, viz., Biology and English Paper II. The result of revaluation was communicated to the petitioner through Ext. P2 order dated 28.6.2003. According to Ext. P2, there was no change in the marks awarded for Biology. However, marks for English Paper II was enhanced from 42 to 43. Not satisfied with the results of revaluation, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition praying for direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action to properly revalue the answer sheets of the petitioner in English Paper-II and Biology based on the answer keys of the examination papers. The petitioner pointed out that eventhough he had originally secured 49 marks for Biology, it was scored off and he was given only 47 marks. The learned Single Judge took the view that the petitioners case is not a fit case for appointing an expert valuer. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, this appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioner.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any valid reason to entertain this appeal. Normally this Court will not and should not interfere with the marks awarded to a student on the basis of valuation and revaluation conducted in accordance with rules relating to the conduct of examination. Whether proper marks have been awarded to a particular answer or not is not a matter that can be enquired into by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The Court should honour and accept the valuation made by the examiners unless any serious and apparent irregularity is pointed out. In this case we do not find any apparent and serious irregularity. One aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that after awarding 49 marks in Biology, it was corrected as 47 marks. From the answersheet produced as Ext. P3 it is seen that such a correction was on account of the correction in the marks given to the answer for question No.39. Though three marks were originally awarded to the answer to question No.39, subsequently the examiner changed his mind and gave only one mark. Such correction made by the examiner while valuing the answersheet cannot be said to be an irregularity inviting the interference of the Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.