Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
SAMARTH MITTAL & ANR. – Respondents
LPA 477, 831 of 2015 & CM No.13119 of 2015 (stay)
Decided On : 03-02-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Bansal with Ms. Seema Dolo, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC and Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, GP
Headnote:
Re-evaluation - Examination Bye-laws - Rule 61, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. Vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and ors. - The court discussed the issues arising from the notification dated 26.05.2015 issued by the Comptroller of Examination, the re-evaluation policy, and the restrictions imposed on re-evaluation. The court examined the legal provisions, their interpretations, and their influence on the court's decision. The court held that the notification's restrictions on re-evaluation were unjust, unreasonable, and partial in their operation, and thus quashed the impugned notification to the extent of the limitation provided for the evaluatory process to 10 questions. The court also clarified that the rule allowing eligible candidates to apply for re-evaluation would include subjects for which the candidates have appeared, apart from the subjects given in the notification.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved issues arising from the notification dated 26.05.2015 issued by the Comptroller of Examination, restricting re-evaluation of answer-books in selective subjects. The appellants sought to impugn the orders allowing the writ petitions of the respondents, which directed re-evaluation of answer sheets and quashed the notification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification's restrictions on re-evaluation were unjust, unreasonable, and partial in their operation, and thus quashed the impugned notification to the extent of the limitation provided for the evaluatory process to 10 questions. The court also clarified that the rule allowing eligible candidates to apply for re-evaluation would include subjects for which the candidates have appeared, apart from the subjects given in the notification.
Issues: The issues for consideration were whether Rule 61 of the Examination Bye-law as amended by CBSE was right in restricting the re-evaluation of selective subjects and whether the notification dated 26.05.2015 could restrict the number of questions sought to be re-evaluated as mentioned in Rule 3 (ii).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification's restrictions on re-evaluation were unjust, unreasonable, and partial in their operation, and thus quashed the impugned notification to the extent of the limitation provided for the evaluatory process to 10 questions. The court also clarified that the rule allowing eligible candidates to apply for re-evaluation would include subjects for which the candidates have appeared, apart from the subjects given in the notification.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were upheld. The court quashed the impugned notification to the extent of the limitation provided for the evaluatory process to 10 questions and clarified that the rule allowing eligible candidates to apply for re-evaluation would include subjects for which the candidates have appeared, apart from the subjects given in the notification.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
The Letter Patent Appeal No. 477/2015 has been filed against the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP.(C) No. 6170/2015 and the Letter Patent Appeal No. 831/2015 has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.(C) No. 7599/2015 whereby both the writ petitions were allowed.
2. Since the present appeals involve issues arising from the notification dated 26.05.2015 issued by the Comptroller of Examination, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
3. By the present appeals, the appellants seek to impugn the order dated 06.07.2015 and 08.09.2015 of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6170 of 2015 and W.P. (C) No. 7599 of 2015 by which order the writ petition of the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 6170 of 2015 were allowed and the petitioner was directed to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the theory examination of the respondent No.1 in the subject of physical education in accordance with the Bye-law and the Circular and any other rules applicable. In W.P. (C) No. 7599 of 2015, the notification dated 26.05.2015 issued by the Comptroller of Examination was ordered to be quashed and the appellants were further directed to act according to its extant policy framed in that behalf and the re-evaluation of twelve questions was granted to the respondent No.1.
4. The brief facts of the Appeal No. 477/2015 are that the respondent No.1 appeared in class XII examination conducted by CBSE, the result of which was declared on 25.05.2015. He had obtained 95 marks each in four subjects viz., English Core, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. However, the respondent No.1 had obtained 72 marks in the subject of Physical Education wherein he scored 30 marks out of a total of 30 marks allocated for practical exam whereas in the theory paper the respondent had been awarded 42 marks out of 70 marks. Due to unexpected low scores awarded to the respondent No.1 in the subject of Physical Education (Theory Paper), he decided to get his answer sheet re-checked.
The policy of CBSE provides for three provisions, i.e. modalities/stages for re-checking of answer sheet of a candidate at three levels after declaration of Class XII examination results:
(i) Verification of marks;
(ii) Obtaining photocopy of the evaluated answer book; and
(iii) Re-evaluation.
On application for verification the board did not find any mistake in calculation of the marks. Thereafter the respondent No.1 made an application for obtaining the photocopy of the answer book. Thereon, he wanted to make an application to the CBSE after paying the requisite fee, for re-evaluation of the answer sheet of his Physical Education theory paper. However, the respondent was informed by CBSE that though there is a policy for re-evaluation such policy does not include re-evaluation of the subject Physical Education.
5. The brief facts of present Appeal No. 831/2015 as observed in the writ petition, are as under:-
“The brief facts, which obtain in the present case, and have led to the filing of the present petition, are as follows:
2.1 The petitioner’s son, Mr Priyank Dhingra, took his class XII examination; the result with respect to which was declared by respondent no.1 on 25.05.2015. The impugned notification thereafter got issued on 26.05.2015.
2.2 To be noted, prior to the issuance of the impugned notification dated 26.05.2015, a notification was issued by respondent no.1 whereby, amendments/additions were made to the examination bye-laws. This notification is dated : 11.03.2015. The notification dated 11.03.2015 allows the examinee to seek re-evaluation of Senior School Certificate (Class XII) exams in the “manner” as prescribed by respondent no.1 from time to time.
2.3 It is in the background of these notifications, that the petitioner, filed an application on 27.05.2015
