G. T. NANAVATI, S. H. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a minor. He appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity ). This petition has been filed by him in which he challenges refusal of the Board to reassess his answer books in Mathematics Papers I and II and Biology (Theory ). It is necessary to point out in the beginning that though the petitioner is a minor he has not filed this petition through his next friend but has only shown the name of his father in the petition as C/o. R. H Dave. In our opinion this is not enough. The petitioner ought to have filed this petition through his father showing him as his next friend. Mr. Tanna appearing for the petitioner requests us to permit him to amend the cause title of the petition. We see no reason why his request should be turned down. Accordingly we grant it. It may be stated that the petitioners father has sworn in the petition. The defect which we have pointed out therefore appears to be technical

( 2 ) THE first contention which Mr. Tanna has raised is that the petitioner and his father who is a professor in Mathematics believe that the petitioners answer books in Mathematics papers I and II and Biology (Theory) have been under valued. In that behalf he has firstly argued before us that Mathematics and Biology are objective papers and that the assessment depends more upon the statement of objective facts in the answers than on the descriptive answers. We assume that it is so. Firstly the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case showing that his papers have been under valued. The petitioner himself could not have formed a subjective opinion about his own performance as if he was an examiner and could not have come to the conclusion that his papers were under valued. If such an opinion is permitted to canvassed every student will state that in his opinion his answer books have been under valued and that they should be reassessed. We may state that more than one lakh of students appear at the Higher Secondary Examination in this State every year. Since an examinee cannot be an examiner of his own answers his own subjective opinion however intelligent he may be is irrelevant in law for the purpose of finding out whether there is a prima facie case for the revaluation of his answer books. So far as his fathers opinion is concerned it is an interested opinion. Every father is generally interested in the welfare of his child. He might have taught the petitioner Mathematics and Biology at home and might have reasonably felt that the petitioner would fare very well at the examination but what is good at home is not necessarily good in an examination hall. Therefore performance shown by a student at home cannot in law be made the subjectmatter of a prima facie opinion as regards his performance in the examination hall. In the instant case the father himself who is deeply interested in the welfare on his son his formed an opinion on the strength of his sons performance at home.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has not alleged mala fides against his examiners moderators or the Secondary Education Board. If mala fides or a malpractice were alleged against any of them certainly this Court would have been within its bounds to examine his case on merits. We are therefore of the opinion that unless mala fides or malpractice is alleged against the examiners moderators or the Board this Court should not interfere with the evaluation of the answer books of a student who has appeared at the examination.

( 4 ) MR. Tanna has argued that both reverification as well as reassessment is a right which every student must have. He has tried to point out before us that an examiner assesses the answer books and thereafter the moderators moderates them. He has further tried to point out that a moderator does not moderate every answer book. There does not appear to be any dispute about this fact. No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document