IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Dheeraj Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
Board of Secondary Education – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15899 of 2020
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Article 226 - Examination Evaluation - AIR 1984 SC 1543, 2005(2) MPLJ 315 - The court discussed the limited scope of interference in the evaluation of examination answers and cited legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought revaluation of their examination papers after being dissatisfied with the marks awarded in certain subjects. The court examined the answer scripts and model answers and considered the scope of interference in evaluation of examination answers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evaluation of examination answers falls within the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and cited legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Issues: Scope of interference in evaluation of examination answers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evaluation of examination answers has a limited scope of interference under Article 226 and cited legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petition for revaluation was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"A. To issue an appropriate writ/direction to respondent no.1 to produce the answer script and model answers of Hindi, English and Math paper of Class 12th Exam 2020.
B. To issue a writ in appropriate nature directing the respondent no.1 to revaluate the Hindi, English and Math papers by an independent expert valuer, before this Hon'ble Court and award proper marks to the petitioner.
C. To direct the respondent no.1 to supply a fresh mark sheet in case of enhancement of marks and award cost of this petition and proper compensation to the petitioner.
D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be given to the petitioner.'
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was regular student of Government Higher Secondary School Khutaha, Birsinghpur, District Satna (M.P.) and has appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2020 having Roll No.203132646. The respondents declared the results. The petitioner secured marks between 81 to 86 in four subjects and has been awarded distinction in those subjects except English (General) Subject.
4. The petitioner was dissatisfied of his marks in Hindi (Special), English (General) and Mathematics in which he got 81, 67 and 86 marks respectively out of 100 marks. Hence, he applied for retotalling. After retotalling the respondent no.1 informed the petitioner about "No Change" in the result; whereas on bare perusal of the answer-sheet, it is seen that the concerned checker had acted in arbitrary manner and without pointing out mistakes in answers, awarded less marks than what ought to have been awarded.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the answer copies of Hindi (Special), English (General) and Mathematics Subjects, which reveal that all the answers to the questions are descriptive in nature. The scope of interference in matter of evaluation of answers in examination is extremely limited u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. Such scope is open only when there is an allegation of non-evaluation or incorrect totalling of marks in case of descriptive type answers. However, in the event of answers being objective in nature, the scope of interference is slightly broader.
6. In the instant case, the answers are descriptive as well as objective in nature and therefore the wisdom of the expert evaluator in evaluating the answers cannot be adjudged by exercising writ jurisdiction especially in the absence of any expertise with this Court. More so, in matters of evaluation of marks awarded in examination ought not to be interfered with or else it may open the pandora's box and lead to flood of litigation which would be difficult for this Court to handle. This Court is bolstered in it's view by the decision of the Apex court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 relevant extract of which is reproduced below:-
"The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevant for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances, the University of Bombay has decided to recognize a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned, it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and HSC Examinations to be held in an interval
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth
The evaluation of examination answers falls within the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opportunity for re-evaluation of answer sheets cannot be claimed as a right, but is available only if the rules governing the examination ....
A candidate's right to request re-evaluation is not guaranteed and must align with the governing rules; judicial review in academic evaluations is limited to ensuring procedural fairness, not merit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.