Arunima Gupta vs Board Of Secondary Education

Heard on the question of admission.

The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) That, petitioner be awarded proper marks for her right answer which she has given in her answer book and a proper mark sheet be issued on that

basis.

(ii) That, respondents be directed to get the answer verified for subject English from an expert and award the correct marks which petitioner dealt in

the answer book.

(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, with cost of petition

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents have not properly evaluated the answers of English subject which have been rightly answered by

the petitioner and due to improper evaluation, petitioner has been awarded less marks than what she expected resulting in degradation of her merit

position .

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the answer copies of English subject provided to the petitioner under the RTI Act,

which reveals that all the answers to questions are descriptive in nature.

In the instant case the answers are descriptive 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 in the relevant field. More so, in matters of evaluation

of marks awarded in examination ought not to be interfered with or else it may open 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 (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 of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer

books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the Shubhi Nagarchi Vs. Jiwaji University candidates, the process is

bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates, who will be 30,000 in number, it

would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of

public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and

revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the

candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.

Dealing with the scope of interference in such policy matters by Courts, the Supreme Court held :--

...... The Court can not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may

be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and

improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court can not strike it down on

the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of

the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered

by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal

infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulationmaking power of its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the

parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution .... the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own

views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing

technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.

Dealing with the contention that students who do very well in the examination, will be highly prejudiced if there is no provision for revaluation, and

therefore Courts should interfere in such matters, the Supreme Court, held thus:-

It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities

and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as

opposed to a pragmatic one where to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or

interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice.

Considering the question whether a right to revaluation should be recognized, while examining the validity of a Rule barring revaluation, the Supreme

Court held :--

We are unable to agree with the further reason stated by the High Court that since 'every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and

get appropriate marks matching his performance' it will be a denial of the right to such fair play if there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand

revaluation and unless a right to revaluation is recognized and permitted there is an infringement of rules of fair play. What constitutes fair play

depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every possible precaution has been taken and all

necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their

being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with checks and cross checks at different stages and

that measures for detection of malpractice etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such cases it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to

strike down the provision prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of fair play.

The above said decision of Apex Court has been followed by this Court in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005(2)

MPLJ 315 and in WP No. 5320/2016 (Rahul Soni Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Anr.) decided on 16.03.2017.

In view of the above, there is no scope for interference in the present petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.