BISMAYA MOHANTY Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications involve a common grievance by the petitioners, each one of whom was a candidate in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1995 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the Board'). Their grievance Is that their answer scripts in various papers have not been properly evaluated; and therefore, a fresh look at them is necessary. According to them, they had expected much higher marks and, were shocked to find that the marks awarded to them, as revealed from the mark -sheets supplied where absurdly less. In some cases, the Headmasters of the institutions were they prosecuted their studies have filed affidavits stating that the marks awarded do not reflect the true merit of the candidates, and there is something wrong in the process of evaluation of answers. It is submitted that the Board has prescribed some guidelines in the matter of evaluation which may provide guidelines for evaluation in the cases of objective questions, but where essay -type answers are evaluated, there is much scope for arbitrariness.

(2.) THE Board has taken a stand that there is no scope for review and only re -addition of marks is permissible. In any event a Committee has been constituted pursuant to the direction of this Court which is to look into the grievances relating to re -addition of marks, non -evaluation of answers and allegation of fraud or tampering with the answer papers. It is highlighted that the answer scripts are assessed by experienced examiners, and certain percentage of answer scripts of candidates are first checked by the Chief Examiner to ensure that the evaluation is in order, and the guidelines provide the foundation with which the examiners are to act. Even step -wise award of marks has been provided to ensure fair -play.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Board all necessary steps in respect of aforesaid aspects have been taken. As observed by the apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth. etc. etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, it is in the public interest that the results of Public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day -to -day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded, in the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost fool -proof.