SANDIP KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the examinee is the petitioner in the present writ petition espousing the cause of action for his minor daughter, centered around allotment of marks to the answers to nine questions of the Geography paper in the Madhyamik examination of 2017. Daughter of the petitioner, namely Sinjini Samanta (hereinafter sinjini), was an examinee in Madhyamik examination, 2017 and on publishing result, she found that she was allotted Grade "AA". On perusal of the mark-sheet of the petitioner's daughter, it appears that excepting Geography, in rest of the subjects, the said Sinjini obtained Grade "AA" but in Geography, she obtained Grade "A+". Being dissatisfied with awarding of Grade "A+", it is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that in terms of Rule 14 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Examination) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter the said regulation) Sinjini applied for scrutiny of the answer script of Geography upon compliance of necessary formality.

(2.) It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that on the result of the scrutiny being published, it was found that the marks allotted to the petitioner in Geography remained unchanged. Since there was no change after scrutiny of the said answer script of Geography, Sinjini applied for supply of answer script by submitting application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the concerned authority of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter the Board), being the examining body.

(3.) On receipt of such application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the concerned authority of the Board supplied the copy of the answer script of Geography to the petitioner. It needs to indicate herein that this particulars relating to making application for scrutiny as well as submission of application under the Right to Information Act seeking copy of the answer script of Geography are not averred in this writ petition. However, on instructions, the learned advocate for the Board does not dispute these facts.