A.Alwin Surya (Minor) rep. by Natural Guardian and Father Arul Xavier v. The Secretary, Selection Committee, Kilpauk, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 21-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.13442 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009A.Alwin Surya (Minor) ..Petitionerrep. by Natural Guardian andFather Arul XavierVersus1.The Secretary, Selection Committee, Kilpauk, Chennai.2.The Joint Director, Directorate of Government Examinations, Higher Secondary Education DPI, Chennai-6. ..RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India,seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for theimpugned letter, dated 1.7.2009, made in Rc.No.023997/RV/09 and quashthe same and direct the 2nd respondent to revalue the answer script ofthe petitioner answer paper pertaining to Biology (Group Code No.103)bearing Reg.No.715549. For Petitioner : Mr.J.NandagopalFor Respondents : Ms.K.Dakshayani Reddy Government AdvocateO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal.3. This writ petition has been filed, praying for a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned memorandum, dated1.7.2009, made in Rc.No.023997/RV/09, issued by the Joint Director https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Valuation), Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai,informing the petitioner that his answer script bearing RegistrationNo.715549, in Biology subject, had been scrutinised and re-valued andit was found that there was no change in the marks already awarded. 4. The father and natural guardian of the petitioner had filedthe affidavit in support of the writ petition, on behalf of his minorson, A.Alwin Surya. It has been stated that the petitioner hadwritten the Higher Secondary Examinations, conducted in the month ofMarch, 2009. He had scored 198 marks in Physics, 196 marks inChemistry, 187 marks in Biology, with a total of 1106 marks out of1200 marks. The petitioner had scored only 187 marks, out of themaximum of 200 marks, in the subject of Biology. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner had been awarded 187marks only out of the maximum of 200 marks in the Biology paper, dueto improper valuation of the answer book of the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioner had applied for re-evaluation of hisBiology paper (Group Code No.103), bearing Registration No.715549.The second respondent, by his reply, dated 1.7.2009, had informed thepetitioner, after scrutiny and re-evaluation, that there was nochange in the marks allotted to the petitioner, in the Biology paper. 6. It has been further stated that the answer books of thecandidates should have been evaluated, as per the Scheme contemplatedunder Bye-law 51 (ii) of the Examination Bye-law of the Central Boardof Secondary Education. However, from the xerox copy of the answerbook of the petitioner, in the subject of Biology, it is found thatfor Question No.23, three marks should have been given, instead thepetitioner had been awarded only one mark. For the answer to QuestionNo.24, no marks had been given, even though two marks ought to havebeen awarded for the answer. Likewise, for the answer to QuestionNo.32, one mark should have been given for the Floral Diagram.Therefore, a total of five marks ought to have been awarded to thepetitioner, in Biology paper, pursuant to the re-evaluation of thepaper. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted, based on the instructions received by her, that withregard to Question No.23, the answer, as per the Key answers suppliedto the examiners, the definition of fermentation ought to have beenwritten by the petitioner as "Fermentation:-" The anaerobic breakdownof glucose to CO2 and ethanol is a form of respiration is referred asfermentation. Instead the student had written the answer as follows:"Fermentation:Fermentation is usually a reactionwhich ends with effervescence. The anaerobic decompositionof glucose into alcohol and carbondioxide by yeast iscalled fermentation reaction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C H O --------------2C H OH + 2 CO + effervescence. The enzyme zymase is released by the yeast." 8. Similarly for Question No.24, as per the Key answers, whiledescribing "Humulin", the petitioner ought to have written asfollows: "Humulin: Through genetic manipulation and introduction ofhuman gene for insulin production, the bacterium E.coli isarticulated to produce human insulin called humulin."Instead the student had written the answer as follows:"Humulin is vaccine virus used to cure humanimmunodeficiency diseases. It is very useful in savinghuman lives from threatening diseases. It provide humeralimmunity."9. In the answer to Question No.32, nine marks had been awarded,out of the maximum of 10 marks allotted for the answer. However,after re-evaluation of the answer book, one more mark had beenawarded to the answer to Question No.32. However, for question No.15,while the maximum marks allotted for the answer was three, theexaminer had given four marks. Therefore, one mark had been reducedfor the answer to Question No.15. As such, there was no change in thetotal marks awarded to the petitioner, in the Biology paper, afterthe official re-evaluation. On further scrutiny and re-assessmentmade, in the Biology paper of the petitioner, based on theinstructions of this Court, it was found that there is no change inthe total marks awarded for the reasons stated above. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that thepetitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court togrant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the presentwrit petition. Since the petitioner has not answered the relevantquestions, as per the key answers supplied to the examiners, noadditional marks have been granted. As far as the answers, toQuestion Nos.23 and 24, since the petitioner has not written theanswers as per the key provided to the examiners, no additional markshad been awarded. However, for the answer to Question No.32 one markhad been awarded after re-evaluation. However, with regard toQuestion No.15, while the maximum mark allotted for the answer wasthree, the examiner had committed a mistake by granting four marksfor the answer. Therefore, one mark had been deducted for the answerto Question No.15. As such, there was no change in the total marksawarded to the petitioner, in the Biology paper. In suchcircumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 isclosed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary, Selection Committee, Kilpauk, Chennai.2. The Joint Director, Directorate of Government Examinations, Higher Secondary Education DPI, Chennai-6.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.33051.Writ Petition No.13442 of 2009RSM (CO)GSK 12.08.2009.