The court can direct revaluation in rare and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence.

DIPAK MISRA , J. :- The appellant undertook Class-X examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal in the year 2005. In the subject of Sanskrit, she was awarded 28 marks out of 50. Being aggrieved by the said valuation, she applied for scrutiny of the answer paper. The Board on scrutiny found that there had been no error in tabulation or computation and accordingly rejected the prayer.

2. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Board, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 13674/2005. The learned single Judge placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and others, AIR 1984 SC 1543, and Neha Indurkhya v. M. P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, 2003 (3) MPLJ 368 expressed the opinion that no case has been made out for directing revaluation especially in the absence of any provision for the same.

3. Questioning the correctness of the aforesaid order, it is submitted by Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant that though there is no provision for revaluation of the answer scripts but in certain cases revaluation can be directed. He has commended us to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of M.P. and others, AIR 2005 MP 152. In the aforesaid case, R. V. Raveendran, CJ (as his Lordship then was) after scanning the anatomy of the rule and the decisions in the field culled out the principles as under :-

"7. The principles in regard to revaluation may therefore be summarised thus :-

(a) A student has no right to seek revaluation of an answer script unless the rules governing the examination specifically provide the revaluation. A provision for 'scrutiny' or 'retotalling' of marks or 'rechecking the results' in the Rules does not entitle a student to seek revaluation.

(b) Where the rules do not provide for revaluation, the High Court will not normally direct the production of the answer scripts for its scrutiny or order revaluation. But in rare and exceptional cases where mala fides or tampering is made out, or where injustice has been caused on account of gross negligence, the Court may direct revaluation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(c) Ascertainment of mala fides and tampering depends on facts of the case and for that purpose, if necessary, the answer script may be summoned.

(d) Ascertainment of "gross negligence resulting in injustice" is a more difficult exercise. A student who has consistently secured very high marks in a subject in the last few years examinations, is shown to have failed in such subject, the Court may consider it to be prima facie evidence of such negligence and call for the answer scripts. (The mere fact that a student feels that he deserved more marks or alleges negligence, cannot be ground to call for answer scripts). On securing the answer script, the Court may examine it or take the assistance of a qualified teacher to examine it. If the Court finds any gross negligence resulting in injustice which shocks its judicial conscience it may direct revaluation.

(e) But change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot be a ground for revaluation. Different examiners may evaluate the same answers differently resulting in lesser or higher marks being awarded. Revaluation is not to be ordered merely because another valuer is of the view that the marks should have been different. In traditional examinations where the purpose is to test the knowledge, grammar, logic or reasoning, the perceptions about the answers may vary from examiner to examiner. (Of course where the examination is of objective type, where the student is merely to mark 'yes' or 'no', or choose one of the multiple answers, there cannot be any difference in valuation).

(f) While fairness in examinations is impliedly assured by the Board, ex