JUDGMENT

Ext.P10 communication dated 13.9.2021 issued by the Christ Nagar Senior Secondary School, respondent No.4 and Ext.P11 communication dated 20.9.2021 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been challenged by the petitioner, father of V.S.Nanditha, a student of Xth Standard in the 4th respondent school, though the further prayer of quashing clause 18 of Ext.P1 at the time of hearing was not pressed.

2. Nanditha, daughter of the petitioner, was a student of 4th respondent school in Xth standard. Due to covid 19 pandemic, Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter called CBSE) could not conduct Xth and XIIth year Board examinations in respect of the academic year 2020-2021, instead formulated the examination byelaw to award marks and grade for class X Board exams on the basis of the academic performance of the student in previous class test/terminal/model examinations as well as Pre-Board examinations conducted by the school during the academic year 2021. Copy of the byelaws dated 1.5.2021 has been attached as Ext.P1.

3. The petitioner’s daughter as per the documents i.e., Exts.P3, P4 and P5, is stated to have good academic record inasmuch as that in class IX, had secured 95% marks in the second terminal examination and scored 422.75 marks out of 450 i.e., 93.94% in the model examination of Std X. However, it is averred that there were three model examinations, but the petitioner’s daughter performed more or less in the same manner and no separate mark list was issued. She used to get very high marks in Science and also in the language of Hindi. CBSE had also issued Ext.P2 circular dated 8.8.2021 in which a disputes resolution policy was formulated prescribing certain situations where the candidate was not satisfied with the marks awarded can submit representation defined as dispute Nos.1, 2, 3 etc. When the results were announced by the Board on 3.8.2021, the petitioner’s daughter was awarded low marks in Hindi and Science as evidenced from Ext.P6. A detailed representation was submitted to the Principal 4th respondent dated 7.8.2021 and also before 2nd and 3rd respondents i.e., CBSE on 12.9.2021. The replies as noticed above has been challenged before this Court.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that Exts.P3 and P4 show that the petitioner’s daughter was having a good academic record and Ext.P5 and another two model examinations’

result conducted during the academic year 2021 showed that she obtained 90% above for all subjects and on the basis of evaluation the Result Committee could give 94 marks in English, 90 marks in Mathematics and 97 marks in Social Science. But, however in Hindi and Science marks were given as 60 and 42 as per Ext.P6 which are much lower than the previous examinations. By applying the procedure as per her previous records, there appeared to be some mistake committed by the Result Committee. Clause 8 of the policy stipulates that the evidence towards the performance of students in the internal tests/exams conducted by the school should be documented student-wise and maintained in a secured manner which can be called upon for subsequent verification and all the schools will see the records of the students along with rationale document. However, Exts.P10 and P11 communications do not show that any re- clarification was ever done by the Result Committee or Regional office of CBSE. There were many safeguards in the policy as CBSE is also empowered to depute a team to verify the documents and the process of allocating marks uploaded to ensure correctness.

5. The contents of the reply of the fourth respondent reveals that average marks in the reference year was 62.3 and average marks in the current year was 62.21 with regard to Hindi whereas of the Science, were 56.08 and 57.27. Clause 9 of the scheme stipulated that application of Periodic Test/Unit Test, Half Yearly/Mid- Term examinations and “Pre-Board” examinations is to be done for a