GAUTAMBHAI GOVINDLAL BHATT Vs. GUJARAT SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is placed before this Bench as the learned single Judge, taking up such matters, was unable'to agree with the view taken by another learned single Judge.

(2.) The petitioner's son, having a brilliant academic career, secured 80.86% marks in the new S.S.C. examination conducted by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in the year 1998. In the month of March, 2000, petitioner's son appeared for Science Stream examination, where his son secured 392 out of 450 marks in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Being dissatisfied with the result declared by the Board, particularly with respect to Physics paper, an application for reassessment was made. On 7th June, 2000, the Board called upon the petitioner's son to remain present, where, in the presence of all the concerned persons. Officer of the Board found that there was an error in carrying forward for totalling. Petitioner's son was given 17 marks in question No. 2, but, on the first page of answer-sheet, instead of 17, 7 marks were put. This was obviously an error, which was corrected and the petitioner's son was given 90 marks instead of 80 marks. Matter did not rest there, but the petitioner has come out with a grievance that Physics paper was not properly checked, and if there would have been proper examination of the answers, there would have been three more marks and his son would have been in the merit list at Serial No. 742, after march over 134 students. It is alleged in the petition that question No. 4(a)(l) was properly answered. Answer which was given was as per the books published by the Government of Gujarat. It was identical and on the same line, as is referred to in the standard book published by the Government. In view of this, it is stated that he should have been given full marks with regard to question No. 4(a)(l). He has made grievance with regard to question No. 5(d) also, stating that as per the book published by Navnit Publication Limited, the student has answered the question. He was given two marks instead of three marks, and thus, it appears that the student himself has reassessed and has claimed that mark should have been given as per his own assessment and not as per the assessment made by the teacher/ examiner.

(3.) Catena of decisions of this Court on the subject state that the student himself could not have formed a subjective opinion about his own performance as if he was the examiner and could not have come to the conclusion that his papers were undervalued. Division Bench in case of Rajendra R. Dave v. Gujarat Secondary Education Board and Anr., 1980 (2) GLR 318 has considered this question. It is pointed out by the Court that if such an opinion is permitted to be canvassed, every student will state that, in his opinion, his answer books have been undervalued and that they should be reassessed. The Court has pointed out that the performance shown by a student at home cannot in law be made the subject-matter of a prima facie opinion as regards performance in the examination hall. The Court has pointed out that unless mala fides or malpractice is alleged against examiners, moderators or the Board, the High Court should not interfere with the evaluation of answer books of a student, who has appeared at the examination.