Dilara Parvin Ali vs Secretary, CBSE and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks directions to direct the Respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the Petitioner who had appeared in All India PMT/PDT Entrance Examination 2011 held on 3rd April, 2011 and upon re-evaluation of the answer sheets declare the Petitioner to have qualified for the final examination after making necessary corrections in her result.

Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner very forcefully submits that here is a case of a student who comes from a very small city of West Bengal having confidence that she must have scored not less than 647 marks out of the total marks of 800 in the said examination. Counsel submits that the evaluation of the answer sheets is carried through machine gradable and the result of the students can vary due to some technical snag in the said mechanical process. Counsel also submits that Rule 13.1 of the Prospectus is not only vague but is unilateral and without any rationale. Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has a legal right to at least ask for re-evaluation of her answer sheets as a student is legitimately expected to know that her answer sheets have been fairly inspected. Counsel further submits that if the answer sheets of the Petitioner are not re-evaluated then the Petitioner will suffer great prejudice of losing one precious academic year.

Opposing the present petition, Mr. Atul Kumar learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that almost 10 lac students had appeared in the said examination and the mechanism of checking the answer sheets through machine gradable is in vogue since 1987 and the system is absolutely flawless without any complaint. Counsel also submits that the answer sheets of the students are repeatedly checked by different agencies and therefore, there is no room for any mistake or technical snag in the said process involved for evaluating the answer sheets. Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sujeet Kumar Yadav v. CBSE, W.P.(C) No. 4548/2010 decided on 13.7.2010.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner herein is a disheartened student who after appearing in the All India PMT/PDT Examination 2011 did not make it to the merit list. Being confident of her performance she anticipated clearing the said examination, and was shocked to face the bitter reality of not clearing the exam and thus has approached this Court for seeking re-evaluation of her answer sheet.

Here in the present case it is not in dispute that the rules in place in the prospectus do not provide for re-evaluation. For better appreciation the said rule is reproduced as under:

13.1 RULES FOR RE-CHECKING/RE-EVALUTION OF ANSWER SHEETS

The machine gradable Answer Sheets are evaluated with extreme care and are repeatedly scrutinized. There is no provision for re-checking/re-evaluation or supply of photo copies of answer sheets for inspection to the candidates.

No correspondence in this regard will be entertained.

As per the counsel for the Respondent, almost 10 lac students had appeared in the said examination and those who have scored more than 50% marks are eligible to appear in the final examination in unreserved category. Counsel has also taken a stand that the said process of checking the answer sheets through machine gradable is in vogue since 1987 in the examination where there is high participation of candidates and that is the reason the answer sheets are evaluated through mechanical process i.e. machine gradable. Had there been any technical snag or mechanical failure in the said process then not only the Petitioner but many candidates would have raised the grievance. No doubt the students having high academic records sometimes do feel that their answer sheets are not properly evaluated but the students themselves cannot be the deciding authority of their own merit as their merit through their answer sheets is left to be checked by the experts. In the said Clause 13.1 of the Rules it has been clearly mentioned that the answer sheets are evaluated with extreme care and properly scrutinized, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve that the Respondents do not scrupulously undertake the said process of taking care in evaluating the answer sheets.

This Court in the case of Adha Srujana v. Union Of India WPC 3807/2010 in order dated 2.72010 had dismissed the petition wherein in case of IIT-JEE examination the Petitioner sought re-evaluation of her answer sheets. Again, in the decision of Sujeet Kumar (supra) dated 13.7.2010, this Court after referring to many judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court as well, arrived at the decision that expectation of securing high marks cannot be the basis for seeking directions for re-evaluation and thus dismissed the petition seeking re-evaluation. In Parent Forum for Meaningful Education and Others Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down that setting of the question papers in the examination and the evaluation of the answers is the prerogative of the examining body and it is not advisable for court to interfere therein. In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court denied the right to a candidate to seek re-evaluation of the answer sheets because there being no such rules laid down for re-evaluation of the answer sheets.

Entrance examinations for various professional courses are taken by lakhs of students today for which a foolproof system of marking has been devised. Having good academic records throughout does not guarantee the passing of competitive examinations as careers of many are made and marred by atomic difference in marks secured in these entrance examinations. If the courts start passing orders against the specific rules promulgated by the Respondents, based on the sympathy for the crestfallen students it will certainly lead to setting a malefic precedent .

In the light of the above discussion and the legal position settled above by Sujeet Kumar''s case, this Court does not find merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.