S. Suren Rep. by father Guardian K. Subramaniam vs The Director of Govt. Examinations and Others

S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.—The father of the petitioner has filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition as guardian. It is stated by the

petitioner that he belongs to Backward Class and he applied for the admission for M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1993-94 after passing

his +2 Examination held in March, 1994. He had obtained the following marks in the qualifying examination:-

He also appeared for Entrance Examination for the academic year 1993-94 and his Registration Number is 726210. He has obtained 49.2 marks

in Biology and 45.8 marks in Physics and Chemistry, totalling 95 marks. It is further stated that the petitioner secured 166.75 marks in the

qualifying examination and in the entrance examination he was given 95 marks totalling 283.75 marks out of 300 marks. The cut off marks for that

year for Backward Class was 287.05. It is further stated that the petitioner has done his entrance examination well and answered correctly. The

first respondent has committed certain error in giving marks to the petitioner and if correct marks are given to the petitioner, he will be coming

within the cut off marks set up by the respondents for Backward Class. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for the

issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to produce the petitioner''s answer script in Biology of Higher Secondary Course

Examination held in March 1994 bearing Register No. 726210 as a regular candidate, verifying the petitioner''s marks and to correct the

petitioner''s marks in the Higher Secondary Course Certificate as per the marks secured in the petitioner''s answer script.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has correctly answered the questions in the entrance examination and

the first respondent has failed to give marks with regard to the questions which have already been answered correctly and if the marks are taken in

to account for his correct answers, the petitioner will be eligible for selection for the M.B.B.S. Course as he will come above the cut off marks

fixed by the first respondent for Backward Class namely above 287.05 marks. In answer to the Rule Nisi the respondents have produced the

records. After pursuing the records, it is clear that with regard to question numbers 7, 12 and 18 the petitioner has given correct answers and by

mistake or over-sight the respondents have not given the correct marks.

A perusal of the answer paper shows that the petitioner has given correct answers. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is clear that

with regard to question Nos. 7, 12 and 18 the petitioner has correctly answered the same. However, in the answer paper by oversight or error the

marks have not been allotted. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of title respondents. The leaned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the petitioner is only entitled for re-totaling of his marks and he is not entitled for addition of marks which though he might have written

correctly, but the Examiner failed to give the marks. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to a

Division Bench Ruling of this Court in W.P. No. 17598 of 1993 dated 18.2.1994 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to take into

consideration the marks which by oversight the Examiner has failed to give the marks. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

for the respondents. The Ruling of the Division Bench cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not support her contention. The

Division Bench has observed as follows:-

The next issue that requires to be considered is as to whether the rescrutiny inclusive of valuation for the first time any question which has been by

oversight not assessed at the initial stage could be said to be discriminatory without there being any provision simultaneously for revaluation or

reassessment of an answer paper or a particular question in an answer paper. Re-assessment per se would convey the meaning that it already once

was assessed and that the assessment is to be re-considered or reviewed, if any question by oversight has been not assessed at all at the initial

stage assessment of such a question for awarding and including marks for the same, then awarding marks to such a question at the time of re-

totaling cannot be dubbed as re-assessment or re- evaluation and it could properly be called only as re-scrutiny and justified within the powers

conferred under the guidelines for re-scrutiny of the papers. Re-scrutiny and re-valuation or re-assessment cannot be said to be one and the same.

It is clear from the above observations of the Division Bench that if any question by oversight has been not assessed at all at the initial stage of

assessment of such a question for awarding and including marks for the same will not amount to re-assessment. The awarding of marks to such a

question at the time re-totaling cannot be dubbed as re-assessment or re-valuation and it could be properly called only as a re-scrutiny and justified

within the powers conferred under the guidelines for re-scrutiny of the papers. In the instant case, as the petitioner has correctly answered the

Question Nos. 7, 12 and 16 and as the first respondent by oversight has nor given any marks and shown it a wrong answer will not amount to re-

assessment. It will not come under re-assessment. It will not come under re-assessment or re-valuation, but it will only come under re-counting and

correcting the obvious error made by the Examiner.

In view of the above, the Writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to allot 4 more marks to the petitioner and issue

the Mark Statement accordingly. No order as to costs.