TINKU MANDAL Vs. TRIPURA BOARD OF SECONDRY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Smti Tinku Mandal has challenged the evaluation of her answer- scripts in the Higher Secondary (+2 Stage) Examinations, 1996, by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was studying in the State of West Bengal before her marriage but could not complete the course of Higher Secondary in the State of West Bengal as she got married and settled at Agartala. She applied thnough the Head Mistress of Bani Vidyapith Girls' H.S.School for taking Higher Secondary (+2 stage) Examination in the year 1996 conducted by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education, (for short, "TBSE") and she was issued with the Admit Card and Registration Certificate and allowed to take the examination with Roll AGAR/F/Est. No. 52005 and Registration No. Ext. 3003 of 1995-96 as an external examinee. After taking the examination the petitioner's expectation was that she would secure 45% marks in average on all subjects. But when the mark-sheet was given to the petitioner, she found that she had secured only 39 marks out of 200 marks in Bengali, 51 out of 200 in political science, 27 out of 200 in History and 58 out of 200 in sociology. Not satisfied with the said evaluation made by the TBSE, 'she submitted an application dated 6.7.96 with the requisite fees for post- publication review of her answer scripts and pursuant to the said application her answer scripts were reviewed and while her marks 29 out of 200 in English and 27 out of 200 in History were not changed in such review, her marks in Bengali were increased from 39 to 49 out of 200, in political Science from 51 to 63 out of 200 and in sociology from 58 to 62 out of 200. Still not satisfied with the said marks awarded to her on post-publication review, she addressed a representation dated 6.2.97 to the Secretary of the TBSE requesting him to make arrangement for re-evaluation/re-examinaticn of the answer scripts in the aforesaid papers but by letter dated 14.3.97, the said request was turned down by the Secretary, TBSE. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Rule for appropriate direction.

(3.) When the civil rule was moved before this Court on 21.5.97, the learned single Judge while issuing notice of motion directed the respondents to produce the answer scripts of the petitioner in sealed cover before this Court and pursuant to the said direction the answer scripts were produced before the Court in seeded cover on 3.7.97. On 3.7.97, the learned single Judge after taking into consideration the grounds in the writ petition that there was no competent Examiner in the subject Sociology engaged by the TBSE for examining the Sociology answer scripts of the candidates who had taken the examination in the year 1996, passed orders asking the Secretary, T.B.S.E. to file an affidavit disclosing the names of the Examiners and Scrutinisers including the Head Examiner of Sociology in the examinations held in 1996. But the said order dated 3.7.97 was challenged by the respondents in Writ Appeal No. 71/97 and set aside by the Division Bench by order dated 20.11.97.