Rajiv Agrawal vs Board Of Secondary Education And Others

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking revaluation of the marks given to him in the subject Physics and Hindi (General) in Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the respondent No.1.

According to the petitioner he has a brilliant academic carrier as he appeared in the Senior Secondary Board Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in the year 2016 and secured CGPA. Thereafter, he appeared in the Higher Secondary Board Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. in the month of March-April, 2018. The result was declared in which he secured 91 marks in English (Special), 97 in Mathematics and 93 in Chemistry, 75 marks in Physics and 72 marks in Hindi (General). The petitioner is not satisfied with the marks given in the Physics and Hindi subject. He applied for re-totaling but the respondent has declared the status as no change, hence, he approached this Court seeking revaluation/rechecking of the aforesaid two subjects by calling an independent valuer in the Court. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgement passed in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Prakhar Kumar Shukla Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Another, reported in ILR (2016) MP 1354.

According to the petitioner, he has been granted less marks then he deserved. In Question Nos.10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 20 in the physics subject. He submitted that for the same answers other students has been given full marks. He has applied for answer-sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2012. Likewise in Hindi subject also in Question No.16, 17, 20 & 22 he has been given less marks. On the basis of marks awarded in the Higher Secondary Education Examination he has taken admission in the in the Engineering Collage and admission in other collages have already been closed now.

On receipt of the advance copy respondent No.2 has filed written objection the relief claim by the petitioner. The respondents have raised the plea of maintainability of the writ petition. According to the respondent, under regulation 119, there is no provision of revaluation of the answer-sheet.

It is settled law that only in exceptional cases where the student has been awarded zero marks or any particular answer has not been checked, this court can call the expert valuer for re-checking the answer book.

In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v/s Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth [AIR 1984 SC 1543] and in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v/s Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission [AIR 2004 SC 4116], the Apex Court has held that under the relevant rules, when there is no provision then a candidate may not be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer-book. The similar view has been taken by the Apex Court again in the case of Board of Secondary Education v/s D. Suvankar [(2007) 1 SCC 603].

It is not disputed that the fate of the students depends upon the action of the teachers who evaluate his / her answer-book. In the case of Prem Ratan Agrawal v/s Board of Secondary Education [2002 (2) MPHT 570]; Board of Secondary Education v/s Rajeev Gupta [ L.P.A. No.295 of 2001 - decided on 26.02.2004] this Court has held that as general rule the Court has no power to order for revaluation of the answer-sheet since the rule does not provide for revaluation, however, in extra ordinary case where student is bright and when injustice have been done, then in such cases revaluation of marks can be done specially in the case of Mathematics and Science. It is some time open to the Court to have a look at the answer sheet and compared with the model paper and if there is gross discrepancies found in the answer book then it is always open to the Court to re-evaluate the marks. The aforesaid view has been followed in the case of Priyanka Pandey v/s Secretary Board of Secondary Education [AIR 2007 MP 235]. The apex Court in the case of Sahiti v/s DR. NTR University of Health Sciences [(2009) 1 SCC 599] has held that re-evaluation of the answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible in a given case.

Recently, the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Tripura Vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Others, reported in 2019(2) JLJR 103 has held as under:

"18. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of revaluation.

The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks. "

In view of the above, it is clear that only in extraordinary circumstances this Court has a power to direct the Board to re-evaluate the answer books. The petitioner has failed to make out exceptional case in his favour. He has already got distinction marks in Higher Secondary School Examination and got admission in Government Engineering College. It is not his that due to shortage of 1 or 2 marks he could not get admission in IIT, NIT etc.

Hence, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost.