S SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer is for a mandamus to the respondents herein to produce the answer paper 6L.C. Instrumentation system with Registration No.8707336 of April, 2000 Examination of Engineering Course for verification as to whether all the answers were valued and correctly totalled and order evaluation of unvalued answers and award marks.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) THE rules of the University do not provide for revaluation. On first blush, decisions also appear to spell out a clear embargo against revaluation Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. Education v. Paritosh Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. Education v. Paritosh Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. Education v. Paritosh A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1543, Rajappa However, we have to get over the inhibitions and impediments obstructing the adoption of a just course in the instant case. Let us now first date the case decided by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. v. Paritosh Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. v. Paritosh Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. v. Paritosh A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1543 After observing. 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 candidates 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 non-fructuation 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 Supreme Court rejected such a demand, holding that under law as abiding by the Regulations of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject categorically stating as they had that there should be no right to demand such an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books, set aside the decision of the Bombay High Court taking a contrary view and holding that Maharashtra Regulation was ultra vires the regulation making power conferred by Sec.36 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act (41 of 1965) and was also illegal and void on the ground of its being manifestly unreasonable. THE Supreme Court observed in paragraph 14 as follows: