MONUSHA. M., REPRESENTED BY FATHER Vs. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF PUBLIC AND THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVT. EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's daughter, Monusha.M., has appeared for the SSLC Examination conducted during March, 2003. She got 573 marks in the said examination. According to the petitioner, some fatal mistakes were crept in the valuation of the answer papers and he believes that proper valuation has not been conducted in the case of his daughter and some of the answer papers were not valued.

(2.) MONUSHA submitted an application for revaluation with requisite fee of R.3,600/ - for nine papers out of the 12 papers. She got full marks for the other three papers. Ext.P3 is the application for revaluation dated 17/5/2003. Revaluation was conducted by the respondents and after revaluation, the marks secured were increased from 573 to 577 and consequently the position of rank was also changed from 15 to 12. Ext.P7 is the revised mark -list. Ext.P8 is the letter issued from the office of the 2nd respondent stating the details of the revaluation. Ext.P8 shows that there was no change in the marks obtained for English, Geography, Physics, Mathematics II and one mark each has been awarded for Malayalam I, Malayalam II, Hindi, History and Civics. It is submitted by the petitioner that nothing is stated in Ext.P8 about the Biology paper and that on enquiry he was informed that the revaluation could not be conducted for the Biology paper, since the same was missing. Petitioner's apprehension is that the alleged missing of Biology paper and no change in the marks obtained for English, Geography, Physics and Mathematics II are an attempt on the part of the respondents in collusion with the parents of rank holders to prevent the petitioner's daughter from getting eligible marks, since the change in marks will cause considerable change in the position of the rank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to revalue the Biology paper or in the alternative call for the answer papers of the petitioner's daughter and get it valued through a panel of experts and also for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 application.

(3.) THE 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that revaluation was done and the same was communicated to the petitioner, as a result of the revaluation the marks of the five subjects including Biology were increased and hence marks were awarded to the candidate and the revised marks were entered in the SSLC book. According to the 1st respondent, there is no variation for the other four subjects, which were also revalued as requested by the petitioner and photocopy of the Biology paper was also forwarded to the petitioner. Copy of the revalued answer scripts, copy of the SSLC mark list and individual mark list are marked as Ext.R1A, B & C. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the Biology paper was revalued and the result was communicated to the petitioner on 1/9/2003. It is also averred in page 3 of the counter affidavit that if this Court desires so, the 1st respondent will issue photocopy of the Biology paper to the petitioner once again.