SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 1877

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
P.K.Selvendran - Petitioner
Vs.
The Director of Government Examination, (Higher Secondary Examination) - Respondents
W.P(MD)No.10881 of 2016, W.M.P(MD)No.8426 of 2016
Decided On : 05-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Veerakathiravan Senior Counsel, for M/s. C.Jegannathan
For Respondents:Mr. K.Chellapandian Addl. Advocate General, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, Special Govt.Pleader, Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Addl.Govt.Pleader

The main legal point established in the judgment is that there was no provision for second re-valuation of the Zoology paper, and the petitioner did not provide compelling reasons for ordering a second re-valuation.

Headnote:

Valuation - Zoology - [No specific Act-Section referred] - The court discussed the valuation of the Zoology paper in the Higher Secondary Examination and the petitioner's plea for re-valuation due to alleged erroneous valuation of certain questions. The court considered various legal principles related to the valuation of answer papers and re-valuation, and concluded that there was no provision for second re-valuation and dismissed the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought re-valuation of the Zoology paper in the Higher Secondary Examination, claiming that he was not awarded proper marks for certain questions, which deprived him from taking part in the selection process of the MBBS Course. The petitioner contended that the valuation was erroneous and sought a second re-valuation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no provision for second re-valuation and that the petitioner did not provide compelling reasons for ordering a second re-valuation. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no infirmity in the valuation already made.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a second re-valuation of the Zoology paper due to alleged erroneous valuation of certain questions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that there was no provision for second re-valuation and cited legal principles related to the valuation of answer papers and re-valuation. The court also considered relevant judgments and government regulations in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition, stating that there was no provision for second re-valuation and no compelling reason for ordering it. The petitioner's plea for re-valuation was not accepted, and the court found no infirmity in the valuation already made.

ORDER :

The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/The Director of Government Examination(Higher Secondary Examination), Chennai-600006 to award 3.5 marks to the Petitioner(Registration No.370078) for question Nos. 28,30, 36 and 37 in Zoology subject in the Higher Secondary Examination conducted in 2015-2016.Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the second respondent to admit the Petitioner in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2016-2017.

2. It comes to be known that the minor Petitioner studied in Green Park Matric Higher Secondary School, Bodhupatti at Namakkal for the year 2015-2016 and as per the results published by the First Respondent, he secured 1140/1200 marks.

3. The stand of the Petitioner is that he secured low marks in his favourite subject Biology and in respect of performing well, he was awarded only 195 marks. After the results were published, he submitted an application to have a scanned copy of the answer-sheet and paid a total sum of Rs.1,650/-. He also applied for re-valuation or re-totalling of the Biology Subject Code No.009 alone and paid the necessary fee. He had the benefit of key answer of the Biology paper. Further, on a perusal of the key answer along with question paper, it was found that in Botany, the Petitioner had secured 74 and in Zoology, he had secured 70.50 and there is a shortage of 4.5 marks and after re-valuation, the results were published by the First Respondent by giving one more marks and final mark of the Petitioner in the Biology is 196.

4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was not given proper mark for four questions in the Zoology paper and as a result of which, there is a shortage of 3.5 marks in the said subjects, which deprived him from taking part in the selection process of M.B.B.S Course. Further, he belongs to backward class community and cut- off mark for the Backward Class in the professional Course (MBBS Course) is 195.75.

5. The categorical plea of the Petitioner is that on a thorough perusal of the questions key answer and subject books of the Tamil Nadu Government for Zoology, it was found that he was not awarded proper marks for four questions due to the erroneous valuation and as a result of which, he lost 3.5 marks. The four questions for which lesser marks were awarded are question Nos.28, 30, 36 and 37. Aggrieved by the non-awarding of 3.5 marks for the aforesaid questions, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that for the question No.28, no mark was awarded. However, in respect of question No.36, for Heading, no mark was awarded, though the Petitioner had given all five Headings. Further, even after re-valuation, the Petitioner was not awarded the correct marks. In respect of question No.37, 'Pre-caution and First Aid'', initially, one mark was awarded to the Petitioner and in re-valuation, the Petitioner was awarded half a mark. Hence there is shortage of half a mark.

7. At this stage, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the details of questions and answer and the marks awarded are as under:

“Part-II(Zoology)

Section B

Q. 28, Mention the reasons for immunodeficiency Diseases - 3 marks

The answer written by the Petitioner is ''Immunodeficiency disease may result from defect in one or more compounds of immune system. Such defect may arises due to mutation, genetic recombination and other factors. Example for Immunodeficiency diseases are SCID and AIDs.

The first respondent officials awarded only one mark for the said answer out of three marks.

Section C

Q. 30. Write short notes on two viral diseases in man - 5 marks

The answer written by the Petitioner is:

Viral diseases in man:

Cancer and diseases:

Virus have been identified as one of the causative agents for cancer. Such tumor inducing viruses are called oncogenic Diseases. Adeno Virus, Polioma Virus





























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top