IMPORTANT POINT
Scope for interference in matters of valuation of answer papers is very limited.

Headnote:EDUCATION - Revaluation of paper - Scope for interference in the matters of valuation of answer papers was very limited - High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no scope for revaluation but directed payment of Rs. 20,000/- for the negligence of Board - Appeal by Board against cost awarded - Respondent had appeared at High School Certificate Examination conducted by appellant - Result declared respondent to have secured 654 marks out of 750 - Respondent made a representation and it was found that marks awarded in one paper i.e. SSH were wrongly shown as 35 though respondent had secured 65 marks - Error was rectified - Respondent applied for readdition and deposited the fee - It was noted in the exercise that in SSH paper he had secured 71 and not 65 marks - Whether award of cost was unjustified? No.
       Held : According to the learned counsel for the appellant-Board the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition rejecting the prayer of the respondent no.1 for re-valuation. Having held that the writ petition was to be dismissed the imposition of cost for initial mistake which was later rectified is clearly impermissible. (Para 13)
       By order dated 5.9.2005 by issuing notice it was directed that the Computer Firm and the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer who were responsible for wrong entry of the marks were to be noticed. Stand of the computer firm was that since entries were made for several lakhs of students, mistake of this nature should not be given importance.(Para 14)
       It is not in dispute that the Boards regulations do not provide for any revaluation. What is provided is for the addition of the marks. The Board had set up a Committee pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya Mohantys case (supra). Initially, candidates case was not covered. But on account of corrections his case was to be considered. His total marks were 690, whereas the cut off marks fixed by the Board were 682. (Para 15)
       The appellant-Board is certainly not blemishless. Undisputedly, lesser marks were shown in the marks sheet supplied to the respondent no.1. In the first marks sheet the total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marks sheet was issued showing the aggregate marks to be 690. Except putting the blame on the Computer Firm, Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer, nothing further has been offered by the appellant-Board as explanation. True it is the first mistake was of the computer firm but the second correction is clearly on the basis of the prayer for re-addition of marks. It was found that the marks actually secured were 71 while on the cover page of the answer sheet the marks noted as 65. For this the blame has to be fixed on the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer. But that does not provide an escape route to the Board.(Para 16)
       The plea of the computer firm that considering the large number of candidates the mistake is not serious has no substance. The computer entries are made to ensure accuracy and to do away with defects which arise from manually recording of marks and to ensure accuracy. The Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually unmindful of the consequences which result from their negligence acts. Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- has to be paid to the respondent no.1 by the Board out of which it shall recover Rs.15,000/- from computer firm. It appears that the Board has taken action against the Assistant Examiner and Scrutinizer for their negligence. While affirming action taken against them, we express our displeasure for their careless and negligent acts which have led to unnecessary litigation.(Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. While holding that there was no provision under any rule or regulations of the Appellant-Board for revaluation, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded for wrong intimation about the total marks actually received by the respondent No.1.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent No.1 appeared at the High School Certificate Examination – 2004 conducted by the appellant-board. Result of the said examination was published on 25.6.2004. Initially, respondent no.1 was declared to have passed in the 1st Division securing 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent no.1 made a representation pointing out that the marks appear to have been wrongly mentioned in the marks sheet. Answer scripts were verified, and it was found that the marks awarded in one paper i.e. SSH were wrongly shown as 35 though respondent no.1 had really secured 65 marks. It was pointed out that the mistake occurred due to the wrong entry made in the computer. The error was rectified in the Tabulation Register and fresh marks sheet was issued on 7.7.2004. The revised marks sheet was sent to the Zonal Officer, at Balasore for onward transmission to the Headmaster, N.S. Police High School where the petitioner had prosecuted studies. In September, 2004 respondent no.1 filed writ petition. It is to be noted that Board had constituted a Committee pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya Mohantys case (supra). The cut off mark was fixed at 682. As at that time the respondent no.1s marks were taken to be 654, his papers were not examined by the Committee. As the candidate had deposited requisite fees for checking of addition of marks, the exercise was undertaken and it was noted that in the SSH paper he had secured 71 and not 65 as was posted in the cover page. In other words, the actual marks secured by the candidate were 690 and not 654 as was originally recorded.

4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no scope for revaluation but directed payment of Rs.20,000/- for the negligence of the Board. Main prayer in the writ petition was to direct the appellant-Board to revalue answer sheet as was done in the case of candidates who had secured more than 682 marks. Earlier the High Court in the case of Bismaya Mohanty & Ors. v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa represented by its Secretary and Ors. (1996 (1) OLR 134) had directed that the answer sheet of the students who had secured more than particular number of marks were to be re-examined by the Committee of three examiners to avoid the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks, considering power given to Chief Examiners in certain specified cases.

5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth. etc. (AIR 1984 SC 1543), it is in the public interest that the results Public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities end grass ro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1119

IMPORTANT POINTScope for interference in matters of valuation of answer papers is very limited.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Scope for interference in matters of valuation of answer papers is very limited.