J.MiraclineMinor v. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Deputy Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30.07.2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENW.P.NO.14021 OF 2009J.MiraclineMinor aged about 16 yearsrep. by her father and Next friend Mr.T.Jesudoss ... PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Deputy Director of Government Examination, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-6.3. The Secretary, State Board of School Examinations, Chennai-6. ... RespondentsPRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing thesecond Respondent to issue the Xerox copy of the valued answer scriptin all the five subjects having Registration No.756529 in the 10thStandard Board Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent held inApril 2009 for perusal, and direct the 2nd respondent to revalue thevalued answer script in all the 5 subjects. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera KathiravanFor Respondents: Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RBy consent of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of theparties concerned, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner aswell as the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of therespondents. 3. The father of the petitioner has filed the affidavit insupport of the petition on behalf of his minor daughter J.Miracline.It has been stated that J.Miracline had completed her 10th Standard atthe Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruporur,Kancheepuram District, during the academic year 2008-2009. She hadwritten the 10th standard Board Examinations, held in the month ofApril, 2009, conducted by the third respondent. Her Registration Nois 756529. She had obtained 459 marks out of the total of 500 marks.Her subject wise marks are as follows:Tamil89/100English 84/100Maths96/100Science95/100Social Science95/1004. It has been further stated that even though the petitionerhad written the 10th standard Board Examinations, very well, she wasnot awarded the correct marks in the mark list issued by the thirdrespondent. When the petitioner had approached the second respondent,with a request for revaluation of her answer scripts, she wasinformed that no revaluation is permissible for the 10th standardBoard Examinations, as per G.O.Ms.NO.64, School Education Department,dated 26.5.2003. However, there was a provision for re-totaling ofthe valued answer scripts. When she had asked for re-totaling of heranswer script, in the subject of Tamil, she was intimated by thesecond respondent, through his proceedings Na.Ka.No.125361/R2/09 thatthe petitioner had got one mark more than what she had been awarded,originally. Thus, the revised mark sheet showed that the petitionerhad obtained 90 marks in the subject of Tamil. In such circumstances,the petitioner had approached the second respondent to provide thexerox copies of all the valued answer scripts, in all subjects, toknow the real marks awarded to her. However, the second respondenthad refused the request of the petitioner stating that there is noprovision for issuing the xerox copies of the valued answer scripts, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the 10th standard Board Examinations. In such circumstances, thepetitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court,under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.5. On instructions received from the respondents, the learnedGovernment Advocate appearing for the respondents had submitted thatthere is no provision available for giving the xerox copies of theanswer scripts of the 10th standard Board Examinations. Further, thereis no provision for revaluation of the answer scripts. Only re-totaling of the marks could be sought for by the candidate concerned,in accordance with the various Government orders passed, in respectof the issues relating to re-totaling and revaluation of the answerscripts of the various examinations. 6. The learned Government Advocate had also relied on thedecision of the Supreme Court, in THE SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCILOF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. AYAN DAS & OTHERS (2007-4 L.W.841). The relevant paragraphs of the said decisions read as follows:6. The permissibility of re-assessment in the absence ofstatutory provision has been dealt with by this Court inseveral cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra StateBoard of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. V.Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. Reported in (1984 (4)SCC 27). It was observed in the said case that finality hasto be the result of public examination and, in the absenceof statutory provision, Court cannot direct re-assessment/re-examination of answer scripts.7. The courts normally should not direct theproduction of answer scripts to be inspected by the writpetitioners unless a case is made out to show that eithersome question has not been evaluated or that the evaluationhas been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examiningbody. For example, in certain cases examining body canprovide model answers to the questions. In such cases theexaminees satisfy the court that model answer is differentfrom what has been adopted by the Board. Then only thecourt can ask the production of answer scripts to allowinspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In KanpurUniversity and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors.(AIR 1983 SC1230) it was held as follows: “16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of theUniversity, contended that no challenge should be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answerunless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree thatthe key answer should be assumed to be correct unlessit is proved to be wrong and that it would not be heldto be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning orby a process of rationalisation. It must be clearlydemonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must besuch as no reasonable body of men well-versed in theparticular subject would regard as correct. Thecontention of the University is falsified in this caseby a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which arecommonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks leaveno room for doubt that the answer given by the studentsis correct and the key answer is incorrect.17. Students who have passed their Intermediate BoardExamination are eligible to appear for the entrance testfor admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain booksare prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination andsuch knowledge of the subjects as the students have isderived from what is contained in those textbooks. Thosetextbooks support the case of the students fully. If thiswere a case of doubt, we would have unquestionablypreferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond therealm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize the studentsfor not giving an answer which accords with the key answer,that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to bewrong.” 8. Same would be a rarity and it can only be done inexceptional cases. The principles set out in MaharashtraBoard case (supra) has been followed subsequently in PramodKumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public ServiceCommission, Patna & Ors. (2004 (6) SCC 714 = 2005-1-L.W.131), Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas RanjanPanda & Anr. (2004 (13) 714) and President, Board ofSecondary Education, Orissa and Anr. v. D. Suvankar andAnr. (2007 (1) SCC 603=2007-4-L.W.104). 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned GovernmentAdvocate appearing for the respondents, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause orreason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in thepresent writ petition. Since there is no provision, by way of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government order or otherwise, for providing the xerox copies of theanswer scripts to the candidate concerned and as there is noprovision for revaluation of the answer scripts, the respondentscannot be directed to comply with the request of the petitioner. Adirection for revaluation of the answer scripts would only be givenin rare cases, as held by the Supreme Court, in the decision citedsupra. Since the petitioner has not been in a position to show thather case would fall under the category of a rare case and that shehas been prejudiced by the valuation of her answer scripts of the 10thstandard Board Examinations conducted in the month of April, 2009,the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it isdismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. Nocosts. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo 1. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2. The Deputy Director of Govt.Examination, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai-6.3. The Secretary State Board of School Examinations, Chennai-6.1 cc To Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.331001 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.33753W.P.NO.14021 OF 2009nm(co)pmk.5.08.2009.