PRIYANAKA PRIYADARASHINI Vs. COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an examinee at the Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 1989 (hereinafter described as 'the Examination') has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the marks awarded to her in some of the subjects for which she appeared.

(2.) . The factual position relevant for disposal of the writ application is as follows : The petitioner claims to be a student of extraordinary merit having secured very high percentage of marks in the Annual High School Certificate Examination. She appeared as a candidate at the Examination with Roll No. 2010162 in the Science stream with English and Modern Indian Language (Oriya) as compulsory subjects and Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as optional subjects, with Biology as fourth optional subject. On receipt of the mark-sheet issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Education (in short 'the Council') she found that the marks awarded to her in the five subjects i. e., Chemistry Papers I and II, Mathematics Papers I and II and English Paper II were below her expectation and she suspected that the answers given by her had not been either correctly valued, or not valued at all. She filed an application with the Council for re-addition in/revaluation of the answer papers in the aforesaid five subjects. She was intimated by the Council that on re-addition of the marks allotted it was found that there was no variation in Mathematics Papers I and II, whereas in Chemistry Paper II the correct marks received by her were 39 instead of 38, as intimated to her in the mark-sheet earlier. While the petitioner submits that she has not received any itimation regarding Chemistry Paper I and English Paper II, the Council in its return has indicated that the petitioner was duly intimated about non-variation in the aforesaid two papers on 18-11-1989 and 11-12-1989 respectively. The petitioner, however, has urged an additional point in favour of her allegations of improper marking and / or erroneous valuation by referring to a decision taken by the Examination Committee of the Council debarring one Shri K. K. Satpathy, Lecturer in Chemistry, B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar for six chances, who acting as the scrutiniser, had awarded higher marks to her in Chemistry Paper I. The petitioner has alleged foul-play. It is submitted that the Council with malafide intents has taken such action against Shri Satpathy, who had awarded due and appropriate marks to her on being satisfied about the patently low marks given to her. At our direction, the papers connected with the aforesaid action against Shri Satpathy were placed before us. They included the answer paper of the petitioner, the terms of appointment of Shri Satpathy as scrutiniser and the report submitted by him about the circumstances under which he had increased the marks. At this juncture we feel it proper to indicate that undisputedly there is no scope for any revaluation statutorily provided in the Regulations governing the conduct of examinations by the Council. The scrutiniser is also not one of the named functionaries in the Regulations. But the parties accept the position that in order to test the accuracy in totalling of marks awarded, provisions have been made in regulation 153 for action by the Council in the matter. The terms of appointment of scrutinisers as made available to us indicate that, they are authorised to check up addition of marks and value any unvalued portion of the answer script, if any. In the instant case, non-valuation of any portion of the answer script is not alleged. Shri Satpathy, as appears from the report submitted by him to the Council, had indicated that he had awarded due marks, as according to him, the examiner while accepting the correctness of the answers had awarded lesser marks. According to Dr. S. C. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this per se amounts to non-valuation and therefore, the scrutiniser was within his competence to award the marks which the candidate deserved. Though the argument is ingenuous, we find it hard to accept. There is a wide gulf between non-valuation and award of lesser marks. Award of marks by the scrutiniser in the former is permissible, while in the latter it is not. Even if the scrutiniser felt that the examiner was not correct in awarding lesser marks having accepted any particular answer to be correct, yet he would be exceeding his competence and terms of engagement by awarding higher marks. The reasons for awarding lesser marks are within the special knowledge of the examiner. In all cases, the ultimate correct answer may not deserve full marks. While finding out as to whether the candidate has given a correct answer, the process as to how the correct answer has been arrived at plays a vital role, particularly in a subject like chemistry. Without knowing as to why the examiner had awarded lesser marks, even though the ultimate answer was correct, it was really hazardous to make a guess work, as has been done by the scrutiniser who definitely exceeded his brief in making a departure by awarding marks which he thought the examiner intended to give, but left out. Had the scrutiniser felt on detailed analysis of the answers that the marks awarded were less than what the petitioner deserved, the position may have been different considering the wide variation. He has not made any independent evaluation, and has acted on suppositions. No consistent basis has also been adopted by him. If he felt that tick marks given by the examiner meant correctness of answers, and full marks were to be given in respect of such answers, no reason has been given for his awarding half-mark for a so-called correct answer. Another stand taken by Dr. Dash for the petitioner is that the Examination Committee should not have itself decided to resolve restoration of the original marks awarded to the petitioner without the matter being placed before the Board of Examiners, which could have delved into the matter at great length and found out the sanctity attached to the course adopted by the scrutiniser; they could have been satisfied that the petitioner was being awarded lesser marks than what she deserved. We find this contention also carries no force. There is no dispute that the Examination Committee is the final authority to decide the matter. No material has been placed before us to show that the Committee did not consider all relevant aspects. In that view of the matter, we find it difficult to interfere in the matter. Before parting with the case, we, however, make certain observations keeping in view the unusually large number of grievances by various candidates, alleging indiscriminate engagement of examiners, careless evaluation of papers, lethargic totalling of marks and careless declaration of results. Undisputedly there is much to be desired and the Council should make all possible efforts to see that the sanctity of the examinations is not lost and the careers of the students are not jeopardised by any casual and lethargic action. Merely because law does not permit demand of revaluation by candidates, it does not provide invincibility to the Council. Courts are not helpless in such matters and on being satisfied that injustice is being done, a time may come when Courts would be compelled to lift the veil of protection and direct the authorities in charge of examinations for revaluation. Instances are there when Courts, on being satisfied about the apparent fallacy in award of marks, have directed revaluation. The slowness to interfere in evaluation of paper matters does not stem from lack of jurisdiction; but flows from a respect for the system, where some amount of finality has to be attached to wisdom, experience and moral of the examiners selected by the Council. If the system begins to rot and corrode on account of apathy and indifference, time may demand striking at the root of it and wholesome alternative approach. Time alone will say when the time for such action arrives.

(3.) The writ application is dismissed; but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.