SUBRAT GHOSH Vs. COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a student of the Ravenshaw College, Cuttack in Science faculty in +2 course in 1989 has come before this Court with the grievance of his answer papers in the Final Examination of +2 Science having not been correctly valued for which the percentage of marks secured by him has become less than what he would have ordinarily secured and that by such incorrect valuation of his answer papers, he has been grossly prejudiced. It is his case that he has a bright career as a student having secured 90 per cent. marks in all the subjects taken together in the I.C.S.E. Examination and 92 per cent. marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and was placed in 'A' grade. So far as the +2 result is concerned, he makes the specific grievance regarding incorrect valuation of his answers in Physics Papers I and II and Chemistry Papers I and II. Refuting the charges it was canvassed before us by the opposite parties 1 and 2, the Council of Higher Education and the Controller of Examination, Higher Secondary Education respectively, that there is no provision for revaluation of the answer papers and that all that the petitioner can ask for is only re-addition of his marks. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1362 of 1990 (Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa v. Jashodhara Padhi) decided on 28/02/1990 wherein their Lordships deprecated the direction of the High Court for revaluation of the answer papers by a retired Professor and Head of Department of English through a telephonic instruction of the Court and observed that since there are no rules for revaluation of the answers and the marks awarded by the examiners appointed by the Council had reached finality, no other authority had power to reassess the same for the purpose of awarding marks unless there are compelling reasons for the same. It was further said that if there are allegations of mala fide which are founded on good grounds, or if it is found that the answer books of an examinee could not be assessed by the examiner, the Court may direct for the revaluation of the answers but however that should be done only in rare cases where a very strong ground is made out for adopting such a course. But even if the Court finds it necessary to get the answer books revaluated, it must be carried out by the examiners approved and appointed by the examining authority and not by an outside agency.

(2.) Considering such views of the apex Court and the assertion of the petitioner that his answer papers had been wrongly valued, we had called upon him to place materials to make out a prima facie case of wrong valuation to have been made. We had also directed the answer papers to be produced for inspection. On inspection of the answer papers, the petitioner filed a note indicating the mistakes committed in the valuation which he wanted to establish through the answers as given in the respective text books. It was the endeavour of the petitioner to show that the answers as written down by him were either identically the same or similar to the answers available in the text books and hence awarding zero or less marks than allotted to the respective questions as against such answers was unwarranted. On such submission by the petitioner we had directed Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties to compare the additional notes and apprise the Court regarding the same but it was submitted by him on an adjourned date that as there was no provision for re-examination of the answer papers without any direction to that effect, a direction may be made for revaluation of the answer papers on the basis of the submissions made in the note filed on behalf of the petitioner. In view of that, Mr. Das was directed to submit a list of the approved examiners of the Council and on such list being submitted by Mr. Das, it was ordered on 8-5-92 that the answer papers of the petitioner vis-a-vis the answers found in the approved text books as regards Physics Papers I and II and Chemistry Papers I and II be sent to the respective Chief Examiners of the Annual H. S. Examination, 1991 for verification of the answer papers as to their correct valuation particularly with reference to the notes of comparison submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Copies of the notes of comparison were also directed to be sent to the respective Chief Examiners. In pursuance of such direction, the papers were re-examined by the respective Chief Examiners and the reports on re-examination of Physics Paper I was furnished by Mr. Das on 7-9-92 and today he has filed the copies of the reports of re-examination relating to Physics Paper II and Chemistry Papers I and II. A perusal of such reports shows that in Chemistry Paper I the petitioner was to get 10 marks more which though had been originally awarded to him yet had not been shown in the total. In Chemistry Paper II it is found that he is entitled to half mark more. In Physics Paper II he is entitled to 2 marks more and in Physics Paper I to one mark more. Thus in total he is entitled to 131/2 marks more.

(3.) Such results as are now found in respect of the answers complained of, besides justifying the order of revaluation also shows the careless manner of valuation of the answer papers. As a matter of fact in recent past there has been very many complaints of negligent valuations of answer papers by different examining authorities and in some cases this Court, finding extreme lack of care, has also awarded damages. Mr. Das faced with such a situation fairly concedes that communication shall be made to the petitioner forthwith of his having secured 131/2 marks more spread over the above four papers and that he shall be issued with a revised mark-sheet.