Back
2005(2) JLJ 216
R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and Shantanu Kemkar, J.
Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of M.P. and others
Letters Patent Appeal No. 922 of 2004: against the order of Single Bench, passed in Writ Petition No. 2451 of 2004:
Decided 5.1.2005:
The appellant (a minor represented by his father) is a student who passed the VIII standard Board Examination held in the year 2004. The appellant passed the said examination and obtained 80 marks in Hindi, 77 marks in English. 66 marks in Sanskrit, 75 marks in Mathematics, 84 marks in Social Science and 75 marks in Science (out of 100 marks each). According to the petitioner, the marks awarded to him arc far below of his expectation. He claims that he had done extremely well in the examination and was expecting not less than 90% in all these papers. He contends that the lesser marks have denied him the benefit of securing rank and scholarship. He, therefore, approached the District Education Officer, Jabalpur for revaluation of the papers. He received a reply that rules do not provide for revaluation and therefore revaluation was not permitted. The appellant sought retotalling. The appellant was informed that on retotalling, there was no change in the result.
Therefore, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2451/2004 for revaluation of his answer scripts. The learned Single Judge. ...dismissed the petition.
Held : We are clear that the appellant in this case is not entitled to seek production of answer-scripts or revaluation. The appellant "as not made out any mala fides or tampering. The appellant has passed with an average 76% marks. The fact that he may get a few more marks on revaluation, is not a ground for summoning the answer-scripts and ordering revaluation. Where the student has already secured a high percentage of marks, there is no case for ‘gross negligence resulting in injustice‘. Courts should not be swayed by sympathy and rhetoric in such matters. As observed by the Supreme Court. ‘pragmatism‘ and not ‘idealism‘ should be the basis for interference in such matters. 2003(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 144, LPA No. 63/1999. LPA No. 80/1999 and LPA 295/2001 relied on. AIR 1984 SC 1543 followed. [Para 8
f‘k{kk& &fofueksa esa iquewZY;kadu ugha&lkekUr% U;k;ky;ksa dks iquewZY;kadu ds fy, mÙkj&iqfLrdk,¡ ugha e¡xkuk pkfg,& &foosdkf/kdkj dk ç;ksx cgqr de vkSj fojys ekeyksa esa gh fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA vihykFkhZ ¼vçkIro;] ftldk çfrfuf/kRo mlds firk }kjk fd;k tk jgk gS½ Nk= gS] ftlus lu~ 2004 esa vk;ksftr vkBoha d{kk dh cksMZ ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ dh gSA vihykFkhZ mDr% ijh{kk esa mÙkh.kZ gqvk rFkk mls ¼çR;sd esa 100 vadksa esa ls½ fganh esa 80 vad] v¡xszth esa 77 vad] laLÑr esa 66 vad] xf.kr esa 75 vad] lkekftd foKku esa 84 vad rFkk foKku esa 75 vad vfHkçkIr gq,A ;kph ds vuqlkj] mls fn, x, vad mldh çR;k‘kk ls dgha de gSaA mldk nkok gS fd mlus ijh{kk esa vR;f/kd vPNk fy[kk gS rFkk mls bu leLr i=ksa esa 90% ls vU;wu vadksa dh çR;k‘kk FkhA mldk ladFku gS fd de vadksa ls og jSad vkSj Nk=o`fÙk ikus ls oafpr gks x;k gSA vr% og i=ksa ds iquewZY;kadu ds fy, ftyk f‘k{kk vf/kdkjh] tcyiqj ds ikl x;kA mls mÙkj çkIr gqvk fd fu;eksa esa iwuewZY;kadu dk mica/k ugha gS blfy, iquewZY;kadu vuqKIr ugha gSA vihykFkhZ us iqu% ;ksx fd, tkus dh bZILkk dhA vihykFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd iqu% ;ksx fd, tkus ij ifj.kke esa dksbZ Hkh ifjorZu ugha gSaA vr% vihykFkhZ us viuh mÙkj&iqfLrdkvksa ds iquewZY;kadu ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk Ø-2451@2004 Qkby dhA fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us----;kfpdk [kkfjt dj nhA ¼iSjk 1 ,oa 2½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr% gesa Li"V gSa fd ekeys esa vihykFkhZ mÙkj&iqfLrdk,¡ is‘k djokus vFkok iquewZY;kadu djokus dk gdnkj ugha gSA vihykFkhZ us vln~Hkko Fkk NsM+NkM+ dk i{kdFku ugha fd;k gSA vihykFkhZ vkSlru 76% vadksa ls mÙkh.kZ gqvk gSA ;g rF; fd iquewZY;kadu fd, tkus ij mls dqN vkSj vad çkIr gks ldrs gSa] mÙkj&iqfLrdk,¡ e¡xokus vkSj iquewZY;kadu vknsf‘kr djus ds fy, vk/kkj ugha gSA tgk¡ igys gh Nk= dks mPp çfr‘kr esa vad çkIr gks x, gSa ogk¡ vU;k; esa ifj.kr ?kksj mis{kk* dk ekeyk ugha gSaA ,sls ekeyksa esa U;k;ky;ksa dks lgkuqHkwfr vkSj okfXerk ls fopfyr ugha gksuk pkfg,A tSlh mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk le qfDr dh xbZ gS] ,sls ekeyksa esa gLr{ksi dk vk/kkj ^rF;kRedrk* gksuk pkfg,] ^vkn‘kZokn* ughaA 2003¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 144] ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø-63@1999 ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø-80@1999 rFkk ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø- 295@2001 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1543 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½
Raveendran. C.J.--1. The appellant (a minor represented by his father) is a student who passed the VIII standard Board Examination held in the year 2004. The appellant passed the said examination and obtained 80 marks in Hindi, 77 marks in English, 66 marks in Sanskrit, 75 marks in Mathematics, 84 marks in Social Science and 75 marks in Science (out of 100 marks each). According to the petitioner, the marks awarded to him are far below of his expectation. He claims that he had done extremely well in the examination and was expecting not less than 90% in all these papers. He contends that the lesser marks have denied him the benefit of securing rank and scholarship. He, therefore, approached the District Education Officer. Jabalpur, for revaluation of the papers. He received a reply that rules do not provide for revaluation and therefore revaluation was not permitted. The appellant sought retotalling. The appellant was informed that on retotalling, there was no change in the result.
2. Therefore, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2451/2004 for revaluation of his answer scripts. The learned Single Judge, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth [AIR 1984 SC 1543] and Neha lndurkhya v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal [2003(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 144 = 2003(3) MPLJ 368] dismissed the petition by order dated 28.7.2004. He assigned two reasons for rejecting the petition :
(a) The appellant has passed in all the subjects with good marks and the mere fact that the appellant was expecting more marks was not a ground for interference. .
(b) Where revaluation is not provided for in the rules the Courts will seek answer-scripts and examine them only in rare cases where there is patent injustice and the result shocks the judicial conscience of the Court.
3. Feeling agglieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant contends that the authority conducting the 8th standard Examination should provide for revaluation. It is contended that as 8th standard examination is only a Division level examination and not a State level examination, (as in the case of 12th standard), there should be no bar for revaluation. It is stated that some Universities and authorities have provided for revaluation and therefore the authority conducting 8th standard Examination should also provide for revaluation. Alternatively it is contended that even though there is no provision for revaluation, the High Court can, in appropriate cases direct the production of the answer-scripts and have them assessed independently in the interest of justice and fair play. He points out that in several cases, this Court had called for the answer-scripts and examined them. He therefore contends that the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the writ petition without calling for the answer-scripts to satisfy himself that there was no error in evaluation. He submits that if the answer-scripts are called for, he would be able to demonstrate that he was entitled to at least 90% marks in all the papers.
4. In spite of Courts repeatedly stating that there is no legal right to seek revaluation in the absence of a provision for revaluation, we find that a large number of petitions being filed seeking a direction for revaluation. Lakhs of students appear for the 8th, 10th and 12th standard examinations every year. Lakhs of students fail in the examinations or obtain lesser marks than expected by them. Whether revaluation should be provided in the Rules is a matter of academic policy and Courts will not interfere in such matters of policy. It is always open to the body of students and/or their parents to mobilise public opinion and seek a policy change involving introduction of a provision for revaluation on the ground that such a provision will bring about transparency, apart from preventing complaints regarding arbitrariness, negligence and favouritism. But whether
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
