PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions raises common questions as to the students' rights to (1.) revaluation of their answer papers, and (2) inspection thereof and other documents connected with entries as to their appearing at the examinations, held by the State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', in or about the month of March, 1980, in accordance with the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'.

(2.) Narration of facts of Writ Petition No. 1906 of 1980 will be enough to appreciate the points raised before us. The petitioner appeared for the 12th Standard Examination in the month of March, 1980 from Ram Narain Ruia College, Bombay, with Science subjects as his optionals. He claims to have had a very brilliant career and had 'intended to go for medical course. However, contrary, to expectation of passing the Examination with distinction, and securing 90% marks, he was, to his shock, declared to have merely "passed" on 2nd June, 1980, with only 71.17 per cent marks He was shown to have secured 80 marks out of 100 in Chemistry, 74 out of 100 in Mathematics and Statistics, 75 out of 100 in Physics and 77 out of 100 in Biology. He does not make any grievance, about his 47 and 68 per cent marks respectively in Hindi and English, He claims to have answered all the questions correctly, admitting of no deductions on any count; and had earlier secured 19 marks out of 20 in practical test of Physics and Biology. He attributes lower percentage of marks to some manipulation, mischief or some mistake.

(3.) The petitioner's father applied for verification on 3-8-1980, in the three Science, subjects in terms of Regulation No. 104 of the Regulations and paid Rs. 30/- towards the same. Under a cyclostyled reply; "be was informed that no mistake 'was found on verification. The petitioner's, father ' thereupon asked for inspection of the answer books for verifying if any mischief was played with the petitioner's" papers to frustrate the-contemplated verification. This was denied indicating the same to be impermissible presumably under Regulation 104 (3). The results announced had equally shocked several other examinees and their parents who also ; made identical applications. There was a general feeling of some 'foul play' and the suspicion that a, few students in collusion with some 'members of the staff had tampered either with seat numbers written on the Answer books or with supple-mentaries, or the marks written on the answer books.