RAJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ applications being interlinked and interconnected were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity the facts of W. P. No. 4473/99 are adumbrated herein.

(2.) INVOKING the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners, who had prosecuted their studies in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Raigarh and appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M. P. , Bhopal (in short 'the Board') in the month of March, 1999, have approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the Board for revaluation of the answer papers in the subject of Higher Mathematics on the ground that the said answer books have not been properly valued and further to appoint an impartial expert for revaluation.

(3.) IT is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have excelled in other subjects but due to erroneous valuation in the subject of Higher Mathematics they have been awarded low marks and, therefore, their career has been affected. Ordinarily this Court would have rejected the prayer of the petitioner at the very threshold but considering the nature of allegations which also encompass an assertion that though the answers in respect of certain questions are correct, zero mark has been awarded, and certain answers have not at all been valued by the examiner. To test the correctness of the allegations made, this Court issued notices and, thereafter, by order dated 28-10-99 thought it appropriate to scrutinise the answer papers, and accordingly, a direction was given to produce the answer papers in the aforementioned subject. On the next date of hearing matter was adjourned to 15-11-99. Mr. S. L. Saxena, learned counsel for the Board, fairly stated that he has brought the examiner who had valued the answer papers in the subject of Higher Mathematics. The petitioners who are personally present in Court pointed out that certain answers do tally with the model answers supplied by the Board and some answers are correct as per the solvations given in other books. On a perusal of the answer books it is also noticed by this Court that certain questions have not been valued by the examiner. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly accepted the position that some questions have really been not valued. The examiner who is present in Court also accepted that some questions have been erroneously valued. It is also admitted by him that some questions have not been valued due to inadvertence.