V J SHARMI Vs. SECRETARY SELECTION COMMITTEE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 1-10-2001, passed in W.P. No. 15948 of 2001. The appellant appeared for the High Secondary Examinations for the academic year 2000-2001, with Registration No. 674167. She is an aspirant to join Medical Course. In the Biology subject, she has secured 190 out of 200. According to her she is a bright student, and having obtained 195 and 198 marks out of 200 in the disciplines of Physics and Chemistry respectively, her case is that the Biology paper written by her had not been evaluated properly, and she ought to have got more marks. She applied for the re-valuation, and on re-valuation she was awarded 3 marks more in the said discipline of Biology, making the total 193 out of 200. Her aggregate marks which counts for medical admission, and which were 288.16, before re-valuation , shot up to 289.66 after re-valuation. But still she was unsatified, and was of the opinion that the valuation had not been done correctly, and she expected some more marks. Then she has filed the writ petition, and on filing writ petition, the papers were got further, re-valuated as per the order of the learned single Judge. In the further re-valuation pursuant to the Court directives, though the appellant gained marks for some questions, yet for some questions the marks were reduced. For questions 11 and 12, which carry one mark each, she scored one mark each, but in original valuation, she could not secure any marks. For questions 28 and 31 carrying 5 marks each, she scored 4 marks each. For questions 35(b) marks, she secored 4. For questions 17 and 25 carrying 2 marks each, she has secured full 2 marks each. After re-valuation while there is no change, insofar as the questions 11, 12, 28, 31,17 and 25 are concerned, whereas 3 marks more were awarded as against 35(b), and that is how pre-valuation total of 190 has risen to 193 after re-valuation. In the second re-valuation made by the expert teacher, pursuant to the court orders, while there is no change as against questions 11, 12, 28, 31, 35(b) are concerned, but as against question 17 one mark was reduced out of the "2" secured already, and insofar as , question 25 is concerned "0" marks was awarded, thus losing 2 marks which were previously secured. That resulted in reduction in marks from 93 secured in re-valuation, to 192 on further re-valuation by the expert teacher, pursuant to the Court orders.

(2.) Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that only questions against which less marks were scored ought to have been valued, and there was no jurisdiction for the authorities to re-value all the questions, against which there was no complaint by the appellant. In any event, the learned Senior Counsel submits that re-valuation being a beneficial provision, has application only for benefiting and not for losing. To say concisely, what the learned Senior Counsel argues is that only questions 11 ans 12 ought to have been re-valued, and not the questions 17 and 25, as the appellant had secured full marks of 2 each, and the said marks ought not to have been reduced.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, countering the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel, submits that the Scheme of Re-valuation does not permit dissection of the questions, and that all questions have to be re-valued, and it was at the instance of the appellant, the paper was re-valued, and the appellant having not been satisfied with the revaluation approached the Court and sought for the Court's directive to again re-value the answer paper, and on reduction of the marks, she cannot turn back and question its propriety.