SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks direction to the Bihar School Examination Board (&aposthe Board&apos in short) to communicate the result of the scrutiny of the answer book of Sanskrit paper. The petitioner had appeared in the Secondary School (matriculation) examination held in the year 1995. He filed application for scrutiny of marks in different papers including Sanskrit. It may be mentioned here that as per the marksheet, he was shown to have secured 49 marks in that subject. After scrutiny it was found that the petitioner had secured 89 marks in the subject. In view of the wide discrepancy his case was referred to the Moderation Board. The Moderation Board awarded 83 marks. It however, also took the view that some interpolation had been made in the marks against question no. 14. The Examiner had awarded 8 marks whereas the question had only 4 marks. The Moderation Board thought that &apos8&apos was an interpolation for &apos4&apos. In the circumstances, the petitioner 'scase was referred to the Unfairmeans Committee which decided not to make any change in the marks shown in the marksheet i.e. 49. The Board agreed with the recommendation of the Unfairmeans Committee.

(2.) PURSUANT to the order passed by this Court counsel for the Board produced the answer book as well as the question paper of Sanskrit paper. I have gone through the answer book along with the question paper and verified the marks. It is true that the marks meant for question no.14 was only 4 as against which the examiner awarded &apos8&apos marks. This appears to be bonafide mistake on his part. The question was in two parts and by mistake the Examiner awarded &apos4+4&apos marks instead of &apos2+2&apos. The writing does not suggest interpolation whatsoever. The examiner appears to have a typical style of writing &apos8&apos and it is in that style that he had written &apos8&apos at different places including at the end of the answer book where he has mentioned the aggregate of the marks secured by the petitioner as 89. He, in fact, mentioned the said marks in words also.

(3.) AFTER thus perusing the original record, I am satisfied that the Board committed error in refusing to change the marks and the decision of Moderation Board or the Unfairmeans Committee was not correct.