MANASHREE DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the assessment of her 2nd paper, i.e. Psychological Foundation of Education and 3rd paper, i.e. Issues and Problems of Secondary Education in the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) examination conducted by the Gauhati University in the year 2007-08 and the marks awarded thereof, which according to the Petitioner, is a result of negligent and irresponsible manner of evaluation of the papers in question, the Petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying, in essence, for re-examination and scrutiny of the answer scripts of these two papers under the supervision of this Court by an expert, and for consequential directions arising there from.

(2.) The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that she had a good academic career all throughout and had obtained good marks in all examinations. She had passed H.S.L.C. examination with 81% marks and M. Sc in Economics in the year 1994 from Gauhati University securing 1st Class 4th position. She is presently working as a lecturer in Economics in Dakshin Kamrup Girls College, Mirza, Kamrup. She had enrolled in the one year degree course of Bachelor of Education (B. Ed) in the Assam Sikshak Prakshishan Mahabidyalaya, Langkeswar, under the Gauhati University in the year 2007-08 and she had taken the examination held in the month of September, 2008. The B. Ed examination consists of 7 papers and the pass marks required in each subject is 36% and to qualify in the said examination, one has to obtain aggregate of 280 marks out of 700. She was well prepared for the examination and she wrote the papers to her satisfaction and she never had any illusion that she will not come out successful in the examination. She was stunned and shell-shocked coming to know that she had failed when the results were declared in the month of March,2008. She was dismayed by 27 and 26 marks awarded to her in the 2nd and 3rd paper, respectively and, therefore, she had immediately prayed for re-checking of the answer scripts of 2nd and 3rd papers and for giving her photocopies of the answer scripts, by paying requisite fee. She was informed by the University authority that on re-examination, no discrepancy was noticed. However, on going through the photocopies of the answer scripts made available to her, she found that she was given only 4 marks out of 20 in question No. 1 and 6 in 3rd paper in spite of writing correct answer and only 1 (one) mark was awarded out of 10 in question No. 7(a). She also found that inadequate marks were awarded to her in 2nd paper. It is her pleaded version that such award of marks is a result of grossly negligent and irresponsible manner of evaluating the answer scripts.

(3.) The Petitioner's answer scripts of 2nd and 3rd papers were produced before the Court on 14.9.09 and finding that the Petitioner had answered all the questions, the University authorities were directed to get the answer scripts re-examined and re-evaluated by any other qualified examiner who had not earlier examined the answer scripts.