Shivesh Chaudhry vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.

Petitioner appeared in Secondary School Examination of the year 2009 with Roll No. 5219666 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner is aggrieved by improper awarding of marks in English Comm. in which he has been awarded only 78 marks whereas in other four subjects, he has secured 91,95,90 and 97 marks.

The petitioner has applied for scrutiny but when the result was declared, there was no change in the marks. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for revaluation of English Comm. paper.

Sri S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision for revaluation in Central Board of Secondary Education Examination Bye laws and there is only provision for scrutiny. In his submissions no mandamus can be issued against the statute and no order should be passed by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for revaluating the answer book. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Aditya Vir Singh Rana and Sri S.P. Sharma, counsel for the respondents.

The Central Board of Secondary Education has framed bye laws with respect to the holding of an examination. Bye laws No. 61 of Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as CBSE bye laws) talks about the verification of the marks. There is no provision under Bye laws which provide revaluation of the answer sheet. Bye laws No. 61 is reproduced below:

"A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answer''s have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the award list and whether the supplementary answer book(s) attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book(s) shall be done."

From a bare perusal of the above bye laws, it transpires that this provision talks about the verification of marks in a particular subject and that is restricted to check whether all the answers have been evaluated and there is no mistake in the evaluation or in totalling of the marks of each questions except this, there is no other method to redress the grievance of an examinee, either of reexamination or revaluation of the answers.

There being thus no statutory provision for review or reexamination of any answer papen hence, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the statute. It is well settled that writ court should not ordinarily interfere with the marks awarded by an examiner who happens to be expert of the subject unless there is violation of statutory provision of law. It is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion on the merit of the domestic authorities. While dealing with such situation, the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth reported in (1984) 4 SCC page 27: (AIR 1984 SC 1543) observed that finality has to be the result of the public examination and in absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/reexamination of answer script. The same view has earlier been taken in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 : (1983 All LJ 1220). The principle laid down in Maharashtra State case (supra) has been subsep quently followed in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714: (AIR 2004 SC 4116).The Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda reported in (2004) 1(3 SCC 383 and President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar (2007) 1 SCC 603. In Suvankar''s case in paragraph5 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under

"The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth (AIR 1984 SC 1543), 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 reevaluation 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. 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 daytoday working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would 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 pragmatic one was to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zerodefect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost foolproof."

Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court In the case of Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242 : (AIR 2007 SC 3098).

In the present case the, averments have been made that the petitioner has opted all the questions and given its right answers and it is because of the wrong evaluation, lesser marks have been awarded. .From perusal of the marksheet of the petitioner it transpires that the petitioner has, secured 78 marks in English. However in. other subjects he has secured more than 90% marks. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner is good student but simultaneously no doubt can be raised on the method of the evaluation of the question papers as the marks are not such less which may prick the conscious of the. Court to interfere in this matter particularly in the circumstances when there is no provision for revaluation.

In view of that no relief as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.