Satendra Sharma vs The Board of Secondary Education of Madhya Pradesh

Rohit Arya, J.—Petitioner appeared in Higher Secondary (XII) Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal for the academic session 2011. He has been declared fail in Physics (theory), as he secured only 15 out of 75 marks in theory and 21 out of 25 marks in practical, total 36 out of 100 marks. Petitioner applied for verification of marks, but after due verification, no change was found. Petitioner by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India makes a complaint that his answer-sheet has not been properly evaluated by the examiner and, therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court for revaluation.

Admittedly, there is no provision for revaluation under the rules regulating the Higher Secondary Board Examination. The authorities have re-checked the marks awarded to the petitioner and found no discrepancy therein. It is a settled law that in absence of any provision as regards revaluation, no writ can be issued to respondent to reevaluate the answer-sheet. Besides, this Court does not have expertise to substitute its opinion for that of an examiner in the matter of valuation of the answer-sheets with reference to the model answer, which was pressed into service by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions as contained under Regulation 117 of the Board of Secondary Education (Madhya Pradesh) Regulations, 1965 has no application, hence, contention in that behalf raised by the petitioner is rejected. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. etc. as regards scope and interference in such matters has ruled as under:-

Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, 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. 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 were 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. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.

In view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.