1. The whole question that is raised herein is whether the petitioner's request for revaluation of answer papers could be allowed.

2. She is a student in Std.XI at Kendriya Vidyalaya. She appeared for Std.X examination conducted by the third respondent with Roll No.641116. She secured 470 out of 500 marks. For the subjects, namely, English Comm., Hindi Course-A, Mathematics and Science, she got aggregate of 96% and secured A1 grade. For the subject Social Science, the petitioner got only 86 marks and she was placed in Grade A2. This is clear from Ext.P1 marklist. According to her, she was expecting 98 marks in Social Science. A rechecking was sought which was also answered by Ext.P2 stating that there is no change in the mark already allotted to the petitioner. Exts.P3 to P12 are produced to show that she had an excellent track record in her class examinations etc. It shows that she had been securing an average of 98.3% marks throughout.

3. Initially, she sought for supply of a photocopy of the answer book and answer key which was replied by Exts.P15 and P16 stating that the information sought for is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act. Again she sought verification of answer book which was also turned down by Ext.P17 for the same reasons. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P21, an order passed by the Central Information Commission wherein a direction was given to provide answer sheets to the Appellant therein. Mainly, it is contended that the provisions in the bye-laws are arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. After hearing parties, this Court passed an interim order dated 02/11/2009 whereby the answer book which was brought before this Court by the learned counsel for the second respondent in a sealed cover was allowed to be verified by the petitioner along with the parents. It is submitted that the same has already been verified by her.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri V.Chidambaresh submitted that to maintain transparency, and to assuage the feelings of the student, a revaluation of the paper, could be directed by this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Sahiti and Others v. Chancellor, Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 599]. It is further pointed out that as the student was having excellent performance throughout, really it is felt that proper valuation was not done. Therefore, to do complete justice to the student, a direction can be issued for revaluation of the answer book of Social Science.

6. The learned counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education, Shri Devan Ramachandran relying upon the averments in the statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that there is no provision for revaluation under the byelaws. The method for valuation of papers have been detailed in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6. It is pointed out that the valuation of papers have been done in an extremely scientific manner and as per a Marking Scheme.

7. Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the statement are extracted below:-

"4. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the valuation of papers in the examination are done in an extremely scientific manner and as per a Marking Scheme. The Marking Scheme provides general guidelines to reduce subjectivity in the marking by the evaluations. The Scheme specifically provides that the answers given in the Marking Scheme are the suggested answers and that the content therein are thus indicators, and marks have to be strictly as per the scheme after assessing the answer of a student to verify if he or she has answered conveying the meaning of the answer indicated in the Marking Scheme. The Scheme specifically mandates that the evaluation has to be done as per the answers given in the scheme and that it should not be done according to one's own interpretation or other consideration.

5. This ensures that no evaluator values the answer scripts as per his/her subjective opinion but stri