Back
2003 Supreme(MP) 409
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Rajeev Gupta and Usha Shukla, JJ.
Neha Indurkhya (Ku.)
v.
M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal
Letters Patent Appeal No. 670 of 2002
Decided on 24.3.2003
Rajendra Tiwari for appellant;
P.D. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1965 (M.P.) -- S. 28 -- M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 -- Reg. 119 -- provision under -- does not expressly provide for ‘revaluation of answer books‘. 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 relied on. [Para 10]
(2) Education -- revaluation -- every effort made to valuate answer book fairly applying uniform standards with check and cross checks at different stages -- no temper can be done due to safe custody -provision prohibiting revaluation cannot be struck down by Courts. AIR 1984 SC 1543 followed. [Paras 12 & 13]
(3) Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 (M.P.) -- Reg. 119 -Rules for retotalling answer books examined -- does not mean revaluation of answer books. 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 relied on. [Para 13]
(4) Words and Phrases -- word ‘scrutiny‘ -- means ‘a searching examination or investigation‘ -- ‘minute inquiry‘. Random House Dictionary of the English Language and 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 relied on. [Para 13]
(5) Words and Phrases -- word ‘scrutiny‘ -- means ‘examination of anything, an official examination of the votes cast at an election in order to eliminate any votes that are invalid and to rectify or confirm the numbers stated in return. Legal Government Glossary relied on. [Para 13]
(6) Words and Phrases -- word ‘scrutiny‘ n means ‘to search carefully‘. Webestor‘s New International Dictionary relied on. [Para 13]
(7) Words and Phrases -- word ‘scrutiny‘ -- means ‘to examine or observe closely in detail, to investigate minutely without any suggestion of criticism‘. Words and Phrases, permanent edition relied on. [Para 13]
(8) Words and Phrases -- word ‘scrutiny‘ n explains as ‘close, careful or minute investigation or examination.‘ Chambers English Dictionary relied on. [Para 13]
(9) Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 (M.P.) -- Reg. 119 -word ‘scrutiny‘ used under -- is further qualified by word ‘marks‘ n what is to be scrutinised is the marks -- it does not mean revaluation of answer book. 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 relied on. [Para 13]
(10) Interpretation of Statutes -enactment cannot be interpreted to mean which is not capable of interpretation n provision should be interpreted in manner which advances cause of justice. 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 relied on. [Para 14]
(11) Education -- result of public examination -- should have some finality attached to it -- if inspection, verification and revaluation are allowed as of right it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty. AIR 1984 SC 1543 followed. [Para 16]
¼1½ ek/;fed f‘k{kk vf/kfu;e] 1965 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 28 && e-iz- ek/;fed f‘k{kk eaMy fofu;e] 1965 && fofu- 119 && mica/k esa && vfHkO;Dr :i ls ^mRrj&iqfLrdkvksa dk iquewZY;kadu* micaf/kr ugha gSA 1998 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 595 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 10½
¼2½ f‘k{kk && iquewZY;kadu && fofHkUu izdeksa ij iM+rky vkSj izfr&iM+rky ds ,d:ikRed ekunaM ykxw dj ds mRrj&iqfLrdkvksa dk ewY;kadu _tqrk ls fd, tkus dk izR;sd iz;kl fd;k x;k && lqjf{kr vfHkj{kk ds dkj.k dksbZ gsj&Qsj ;k jn~nkscny ugha fd;k tk ldrk && iqueZwY;kadu ds fu"ks/k dk mica/k U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fo[kafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1543 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
¼3½ ek/;fed f‘k{kk eaMy fofu;e] 1965 ¼e-iz-½ && fofu- 119 && mRrj&iqfLrdkvksa dk iqu% tksM+ djus ds fu;eksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k && mRrj iqfLrdkvksa dk iqueZwY;kadu vfHkizsr ugha gSA 1998 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 595 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^laoh{kk ¼LdzwVuh½ && vFkZ gS ^[kkstijd ijh{k.k ;k vUos"k.k* && ^lw{e tk¡p*A jsaMe gkml fMD‘kujh vkQ n baxfy‘k ySaXost rFkk 1998 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 595 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼5½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^laoh{kk ¼LdzwVuh½* && vFkZ gS fdlh Hkh pht dh tkap&iM+rky] fuokZpu esa Mkys x, erksa dh izkf/kd`r tk¡p&iM+rky ftlls fd ,sls erksa dks fudkyk tk lds tks vfof/kekU; gS vkSj fooj.kh esa mfYyf[kr la[;k esa lq/kkj fd;k tk lds vFkok iqf"V dh tk ldsA ljdkjh fof/k ‘‘kCnkoyh voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼6½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^laoh{kk ¼LdzwVuh½ && vFkZ gS] ^/;kuiwoZd vuqla/kku djuk*A osClVlZ U;w baVjus‘kyu fMD‘kujh voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼7½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn ^laoh{kk ¼LdzwVuh½ && vFkZ gS] ^ckjhdh ls foLrkj ls tkap&iM+rky djuk] vkykspuk vFkok vk‘kadk ds ladsr ds fcuk lw{e :i ls vUos"k.k djuk*A oMZ~l ,aM Qzstst] LFkk;h laLdj.k voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼8½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; & ‘‘kCn ^laoh{kk ¼LdzwVuh½* && O;k[;k && ^ckjhd] /;kuiwoZd lw{e vUos"k.k vFkok tk¡p&iM+rky*A pSaclZ bafXy‘k fMD‘kujh voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼9½ ek/;fed f‘k{kk eaMy fofu;e] 1965 ¼e-iz-½ &&fofu- 119 && iz;qDr ‘‘kCn ^laoh{kk* && ‘‘kCn ^vadksa* ls Hkh fo‘ksf"kr gS && tks laohf{kr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS og vad gS && vFkZ mRrj&iqfLrdkvksa dk iqueZwY;kadu ugha gSA 1998 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 595 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 13½
¼10½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && vf/kfu;fefr dk ml vFkZ esa fuoZpu ugha fd;k tk ldrk ftlesa fuoZpu dh lkeF;Z ugha && mica/k dk fuoZpu ml jhfr ls fd;k tkuk pkfg, ftlls U;k; dk y{; vxzlj gksA 1998 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 595 voyafcrA
¼iSjk 14½
¼11½ f‘k{kk && yksd ijh{kkvksa ds ijh{kk&Qy && muesa dqN vafrerk gksuk pkfg, && ;fn fujh{k.k] lR;kiu vkSj iqueZwY;kadu vf/kdkj ds :i esa vuqKkr dj fn;k x;k rks bldk ifj.kke ?kksj vkSj vlhe vfu‘prrk gksxkA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1543 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 16½
Gupta, J.
1. Appellant Ku. Neha Indurkhya has filed this appeal under Clause 10, of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 24.10.2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 4116/2002, whereby petitioner's petition seeking 'revaluation' of her answer-papers of the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics was dismissed.
2. The appellant appeared in the Final Examinations for Class XII, conducted by respondent Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education in the year 2002.
3. The appeI1ant on her own assessment was expecting very good marks for her performance in the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics. On receiving her mark-sheet she was shocked to note that she could secure only 12, 18 and 19 marks in the subjects of English (Gen.), Physics (Theory) and Mathematics. The appellant, therefore, applied for 'Retotalling of Marks' in the above mentioned three subjects, by depositing the requisite fee as per the relevant 'Regulation'.
4. The appellant being disappointed and frustrated on account of the non-fructuation of her hopes and expectation, based on self-assessment of her performance in the examination and labouring under an impression that her performance has not been properly evaluated, filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for a direction to the respondent to produce her answer-books of the above subjects in the Court and for 'Revaluation' of these answer-papers by a Competent Valuer.
5. The respondent Board in their return denied the appellant's averments and contended that in the year 2002, the Board has formulated new guidelines of valuation as a step towards making the examinations more valid, reliable, comprehensive and elaborate. It was further contended that the Board after receiving the appellant's application got her answer-papers of the subjects of English (General), Physics (Theory) and Mathematics verified and as no discrepancy or fault revealed, the appellant was informed about 'No Charge', in the marks obtained by her.
6. The learned Single Judge, on considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition.
7. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, the learned senior counsel, vehemently argued that the writ Court has erred in not directing the respondent for 'Revaluation' of the appellant's answer-papers of the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics.
8. Shri P.D. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent Board, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, in thy case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another v. Ku. Vinita Rupra, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 595, contended that as there is no provision of 'Revaluation' in the M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, the appellant's petition has rightly been dismissed.
9. Respondent Board is a statutory body constituted under section 3 of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). It is the duty of the Board to take all necessary steps to make examinations more valid, reliable comprehensive and elaborate. Section 28, of the Act, confers powers on the Board to make Regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the said power, respondent Board framed regulations known as M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations').
10. Before considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to reproduce regulation 119, of the Regulations, which reads as under:
"119. A candidate who has appeared at an examination of the Board may apply to the Secretary for the scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result in accordance with the rules framed by the Board.''
‘The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that Regulations 119 does not expressly provide for 'Revaluation of Answer Papers'.
11. The desirability/permissibility of 'Revaluation of Answer Papers' in the examination conducted by the Board cam
