RAVI SUDHAKARRAO NARSIKAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD AURANGABAD DIVISIONAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the assessment of marks vis-a-vis the performance of petitioner in the English paper for the H. S. C. Board Examination conducted in May 1988.

(2.) PETITIONERS complaint is that he was awarded 24 out of 100 marks in the English paper. The passing marks were 35. If he had secured one more mark then with the aid of grace marks he could have passed at the examination itself. Unfortunately having received one mark less in English, he could not get the benefit of grace marks. Petitioner suspects that there was non-application of mind on the part of the Examiner vis-a-vis the appraisal of his English answer paper. He had taken up the matter with the Chairman and Secretary of the Board and after examining the answer paper both found some substance in the petitioners grievance. Apparently, four questions answered by him had been awarded o mark. His own belief was that the answers given by him in respect of all the questions corresponded to the model answers. Despite this, he had failed. A writ was sought to direct a re-evaluation of the English answer book by an independent Examiner in the presence of a person authorised by the Court.

(3.) RESPONDENTS return contends that the relief being sought by the petitioner is inconceivable. As a matter of fact, there was no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner and his petition had to be dismissed with costs. Counsel for the parties have been heard and we have seen the answer book submitted by the respondent in a sealed cover. The paper shows that the petitioner was awarded O marks in only two of the 11 questions answered by him. After the marking by the Examiner there was a moderation done. The Moderator found no defect in the carry-over of marks on the title page vis-a-vis those recorded in the inner pages. The contention of the petitioners Advocate is that the answers having been given, it cannot be said that the petitioner deserved O marks. It is not possible to agree with this submission. If the answers were wholly wrong though occupying some portion of the answer papers, the Examiner cannot but record a O mark. The reliance placed upon the decision in (Jyoti Lonkars case) A. I. R. 1988 Bombay 176 does not carry the petitioners case any further. What had happened in Jyoti Lonkars Case was that the assessment of her performance in practical examination made by the school teacher was found to be vitiated by active malice. The passage relied by Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioner is to be found in para 6, and, is to the following effect :---