ABHILIPSA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls in question the marks awarded to her in English, Mathematics, Geography & Drawing papers in the U.P. (M.E.) Common Examination, 2006 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa as mala fide, arbitrary, improper and grossly inconsistent with her performance in the examination. Sri S. P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was a brilliant student all through and performed excellent in the aforesaid Board Examination. Her performance was outstanding and she expected not less than 525 out of a total mark of 550 in the aggregate. However, when the result was published she found that she has 461 marks whereas average students of her school have secured higher percentage of marks. It is submitted that the arbitrary and despotic attitude and action of Opp.Parties in award of poor marks to the petitioner despite excellent performance have caused acute mental anguish, demoralization, depression and psychological trauma. Petitioner through her father guardian informed and requested the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Collector by application dated 15.4.2006 for re -checking or re -evaluation of answer scripts in view of the most probable and plausible reason that petitioners answer scripts have not been properly and justly examined and evaluated resulting in award of low marks vis -a -vis her performance.

(2.) OPP .Party No.5 after re -checking of addition of marks notified on 23.5.2006 that the petitioner has secured in English 87 as against 86, 40 in Geography as against 38 and in rest of the papers like Mathematics, History and Drawing the mark has remained unchanged. In all, petitioner has been informed that she has secured 3 more marks as aforesaid and according to the petitioner, it is a tricky maneuver by enhancing only 3 marks to hush up the issue and to close the chapter. Sri Mishra submits that the marks have not been awarded in terms of her performance in the Boards examination. Referring to some publication in the newspapers, it is submitted that as per the report, there was adoption of corrupt practice in pre -fixing the marks in the evaluation process of answer papers of Class -VII Board Examination, 2006, changing of evaluation centres, taking the students to more difficult inaccessible areas and operation of racket in the evaluation process in Kendrapara and Pattamundai Education Circles, and, therefore, the petitioners apprehension that she has been victimised in the hands of authorities is fortified. It is, therefore, submitted that even though the Boards Regulation does not permit and there is no provision for re -evaluation of answer scripts, in the facts of the petitioners case. The answer scripts should be called for and the Court should peruse the answer script to find out whether the marks have been improperly awarded and then the answer papers for valuation by a Board of Examiners.

(3.) IN Maharashtra State of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1543, the apex Court has rejected the contention and set at naught the decision of the High Court that every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his performance. Otherwise, it will be a denial of right to such fair play if there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand revaluation. The apex Court in the aforesaid case took note of the counter affidavit of the Board conducting HSC Examination in which it has set out enormity of the task with which it is based, namely, completing examination twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of result of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and H.S.C. examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another and if the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about 10% of the candidates who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. 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 apex Court while summing up observed that the resultant legal position emerging from High Court judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his result would, as an inherent part of his right to fair play be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers and in any event far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. It will 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. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or by -law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice.