REETANJALI PATI Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, students of Vyasnagar High School, Jaipur Road who appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1981 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (opp. party No. 1) filed this writ application praying to quash the revised marks as shown in Annexures- 3(b), 4(b) and 6 and to direct the opp. parties to restore the original marks as per Annexures 3(a), 4(a) and 5 with appropriate division and rank. The Headmaster of the School is the other opp. party (No. 2) in the writ application.

(2.) The facts leading to the controversy may be shortly stated thus : The petitioners were regular students of the Vyasanagar High School and appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1981 through Hingula High School Centre, Sankhachila. Their results were published by the Board. Thereafter the Headmaster issued to them school leaving certificates and mark-sheets and on the strength of the said documents the petitioners applied for admission to different colleges; some of them were selected and took admission in colleges. After about two weeks of the publication of the results the opposite party No. 2 issued letters to the petitioners and also to their guardians asking them to surrender the mark-sheets and the school leaving certificate issued to them. Thereafter revised mark-sheets were issued to the petitioners. On comparison of the original and the revised mark-sheets the petitioners found that the aggregate marks secured by them were substantially reduced and consequently the division was adversely affected. It is the case of the petitioners that similar was the fate of all examinees of Vyasanagar High School. The revision of marks, it is alleged by the petitioners, was whimsical, arbitrary and incompetent. It is their contention that revision of the marks substantially reducing the same could not be effected unilaterally by the Board without following the principles of natural justice. On these allegations the petitioners filed the writ application seeking the relief notice earlier.

(3.) The opp. party No. 1, the Board of Secondary Education, in its counter-affidavit denied the allegations made and the contentions raised by the petitioners. In short, the case of the said opp. party is that the revision of mark-sheets issued to the petitioners was nothing but correction of inadvertent mistakes that had crept in while issuing the mark-sheets. Explaining the procedure followed regarding correction of answer scripts and declaration of results it is stated in the counter-affidavit that after the examinations are held the answer papers are valued at different centres fixed for the purpose. The examiners submit the mark foils after putting the marks in the answer scripts. After the mark foils are received or at times in course of receipt of mark foils, tabulators are engaged to tabulate the marks. This procedure is adopted for avoiding delay in publication of results. There is pro forma for the purpose of tabulation of marks. Such pro forma is prepared in four sets; two sets are kept in the confidential section, one set is kept in the certificate section for issue of mark lists and provisional certificates to candidates who apply for the same and the other set is sent to different schools in parts. While the tabulation work for the examination in question was going on, confidential reports were received against the Hingula High School Centre, Sankhachila where students from Vyasanagar High School were taking the examination regarding erratic valuation of the answer papers. The Examination Committee of the Board on careful consideration of the reports decided that a special set of examiners should be appointed to examine the answer scripts of the centres which had been reported against, so that correct assessment of standard of the examinees can be ascertained. The answer, scripts of the petitioners and other examinees appearing at Hingula High School Centre were sent to the special examiners. Before the marks awarded by the special examiners were received, the tabulators prepared four sets of mark lists on the basis of the original marks. However, before printing of the results one of the tabulation registers which formed the basis for publication of the result was corrected by the Secretary himself with the assistance of one of the confidential assistants of the Board on the basis of mark foils received from the special set of examiners appointed by the Examination Committee. The other three sets of- the pro forma could not be immediately corrected. In course of printing of the results three other pro formas were prepared according to the corrected marks. Instead of affixing them to the respective registers the said three copies were kept in the corrected tabulation register by mistake which was lost sight of on account of the staff of the office being busy for publication of results in time. After receipt of the printed result booklets, the results were published on 2nd July, 1981. The printed booklet reflects the correct result on the basis of revalued marks excepting some printing mistakes, particularly in the case of petitioner No. 3 Miss. Sarita Patnaik bearing roll No. 16 P 899 who has been erroneously shown to have passed in the first division instead of second division. After publication of the results on 2nd July, 1981 the relevant papers of the tabulation registers relating to the various High Schools were sent to the concerned Headmasters for issue of mark lists and in school leaving certificates to the concerned candidates. Unfortunately the fourth copy prepared on the basis of the mark foils before valuation of the answer scripts by the specially appointed examiners was sent to the Headmaster of Vyasanagar High School and four to five other High Schools attached to Hingula High School Centre. When the Asst. Secretary in charge of publication of results of Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1981, detected the mistake, the matter was brought to the notice of the Secretary and a special messenger was sent to the High Schools concerned for collecting back the wrong mark lists and to substitute them with correct ones. Although the special messenger collected the wrong mark-sheets from three to four other High Schools he could not meet the Headmaster of Vyasanagar High School as a result of which the wrong mark list could not be collected from him and the corrected ones could not be delivered to him. On receiving the report from the special messenger, a telegram was sent to the Headmaster of Vyasanagar High School on 11-7-81 not to issue marks on the basis of the mark list sent to him which was to be treated as cancelled and he was requested to return the wrong mark-sheet and receive the correct mark-sheet from the office personally. However after five days on 16-7-81 the Headmaster informed the Board telegraphically to send the revised mark-sheet by special messenger. He indicated in the telegram that the marks had already been issued on the basis of the earlier mark-sheet. After sending the telegram on 16-7-81 possibly the Headmaster realised that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the wrong mark-sheet since the result published in Vol. V of the printed booklet clearly indicates the correct result. Therefore he sent a special messenger with the wrong mark-sheet and after returning back the same the messenger took the correct mark-sheet. On these averments the Board submitted that the difference of the marks is on account of the valuation made by the first set of examiners which was found, after valuation by the special examiners, to be erratic. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that some printing mistakes regarding results of some of the candidates crept into the printed booklet and one such instance is that of petitioner No. 3 Miss. Sarita Patnaik. The printed booklet being provisional in nature the division indicated therein is of no consequence as the marks awarded to the candidate would indicate his/ her correct position as per the Regulations. This has been made amply clear by mentioning on the first page of each volume of the booklet "The results published are provisional and subject to modification after past published review, if any. All reasonable care has been taken to ensure accuracy in the results published herein and any mistake detected should however be brought to the notice of the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack". It is the contention of the Board that the Examination Committee has sufficient power to direct revaluation of all or some papers if circumstances so require. The allegation that the marks of the petitioners were changed after publication of results was categorically denied in the counter.