Sunanda Bhandare ( 1 ) THIS petition filed in public interest seeksdirections in respect of examinations for Class X and Class XII conductedby the Central Board of Secondary Education. The main grievance of thepetitioners is regarding the use of multiple set of question papers for Classx and XII throughout the country, The petitioners pray that the Examinations Bye-Laws 1990 in so far as the same permit use of multiple set ofquestion papers be quashed and the decision based on the report of Madanmohan Committee and the Seminar held thereunder be also quashed. It wassubmitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that another writpetition being C. W. P. 843 of 1992 was filed in this Court by a student inwhich similar relief was sought because multiple set of question papers wereintroduced by the respondent for examinations to Class X and XII only indelhi to be held in March 1992. Learned Counsel submitted that thoughthe writ petition was disposed of primarily because the examinations wereheld immediately and all arrangements were complete. Still this Court hadmade certain observations while disposing of an application for interim relieffiled in that writ petition. In the said order it was observed as under : "in our opinion the decision to use multiple sets of questionpapers in the same examination in the circumstances stated by therespondents has been taken rather in haste, in mid session andwithout proper consideration of the effects of the new scheme withparticular reference to its impact on the students. We find therehas been no proper study, no research done, no students everqueried, and no parent consulted before implementing the newscheme of examination. Respondents themselves admit it is aninnovation used for the first time in the Board Examination of Xand XII Classes. They say they are introducing this scheme as anexperimental measure but then experiment at what cost. Arethe careers of the students numbering over lakhs who are just atthe threshold of their careers in their lives to be experimentedwith this way ? Are they not being subjected to uncertainties ofthe examination system as is prevalent. Respondents here got areport of mass copying at 20 centres out of about 600 such centreswhere the examination was held in the year 1991. The masscopying at times consisted of smuggling out the question paperfrom the examination centre and with the help of Xerox-machinesetc. smuggling in answers to the question papers. Respondents here got areport of mass copying at 20 centres out of about 600 such centreswhere the examination was held in the year 1991. The masscopying at times consisted of smuggling out the question paperfrom the examination centre and with the help of Xerox-machinesetc. smuggling in answers to the question papers. The report ofthe expert committee on which the respondents rely is dated 30thseptember 1991 and the impugned circulars are of 12/09/1991 and 25/09/1991. The report of the committee wasthus, not available while the decision had already been taken. Toget over this, the respondents rely on the recommendations of aseminar held on 28/08/1991 on the subject disinfectingexaminations (Short and Long Term Measures for Preventing theuse of Unfair Means ). Foreword to this, report/brochure waswritten by the then Chairman, C. B. S. E. . inoctober 1991. Thiswas based on the discussions in the Seminar and report of thecommittee abovementioned. This brochure is again of a later datethan the impugned circulars. Then the contention of the respondents has been that the recommendations of the Seminar wereavailable on 28/08/1991 itself on which date it was held Itis stated that 32 educationists including Principals participated inthe Seminar where papers were also read and conclusions arrivedat. Nothing further was done and no investigation made. As notedabove, students who were going to be directly affected and alsotheir parents were not considered necessary to be consulted andtheir suggestions obtained. No doubt, first respondent is empoweredto conduct examinations but in the exercise of that power it hasto act reasonably, in good faith and on correct grounds. In otherwords, when the first respondent used its discretion in introducinga new system of examination papers, that discretion had to beexercised reasonably, fairly and justly. The discretion is notabsolute or unfettered. When while exercising its discretion firstrespondent ignores a relevant consideration or takes into accountan irrelevant consideration, its decision cannot be said to be withinthe confines of reasonableness. That way it acts arbitrarily and adecision is liable to be set aside. This position in law is well settled. The respondents have drawn a picture that mass copying issomething like an organised crime. If that be so, can the newsystem stop the evil. If one question paper can be smuggled outwhere is the guarantee that four question papers cannot be sosmuggled out. This position in law is well settled. The respondents have drawn a picture that mass copying issomething like an organised crime. If that be so, can the newsystem stop the evil. If one question paper can be smuggled outwhere is the guarantee that four question papers cannot be sosmuggled out. The respondents have said that in each examinationcentre there will be four different sets of question papers all jumbledup and no student or even the invigilator would know which ofthe four papers a student is getting till he actually gets it. Thepetitioners contend that in our system of examination allstudents are to be judged by a common yardstick to see theircomparative merit. This is so particularly in these days of hardcompetition. Level of intelligence has to be decided on the basisof a set pattern which would mean a single set of paper when eachone of students answers that paper according to his preparedness. ability and capability. The examiner then gives marks, may beranging from 10% to 90%. In this way test is same for everystudent and he is treated equally. In the new system now introducedone student is being tested vis-a-vis three other students havingdifferent set of question papers. Petitioners have also contendedthat there is every possibility of discontentment and even frustrationamong the students when one student finds that the question paperof the other student was simple or easy. They further say forgetting admission in colleges when even a fraction of marks countsthe respondents should not have embarked upon the new experiment without considering the whole matter in its proper perspective. There are other ways to curb the evil of mass copying, theycontend. The petitioners having strongly criticised the discriminatory policy adopted by the respondents for the students of Delhivis-a-vis those outside Delhi. If a certain bye law gives power tothe respondents in setting paper to use multiple sets of questionpapers in the same examination, that cannot be confined to anyparticular region. Petitioners also say that they were never earlieraware till they read the affidavit of the respondents that there weredifferent sets of papers for Delhi and outside Delhi students. Theyfurther say that choosing Delhi for conduct of examination usingthe new system of multiple sets of question papers is per sediscriminatory. Petitioners also say that they were never earlieraware till they read the affidavit of the respondents that there weredifferent sets of papers for Delhi and outside Delhi students. Theyfurther say that choosing Delhi for conduct of examination usingthe new system of multiple sets of question papers is per sediscriminatory. We are, prima fade, inclined to agree with the petitionersthat the decision to introduce multiple sets of question papers isarbitrary, unreasonable and it has no rational relationship with theobject sought to be achieved. Having held so we would havecertainly stopped the respondents from going ahead with theconduct of the examination adopting this new system. There arehowever, weighty, and, if we may say so, even quite grave consideration which do not warrant such an order at this stage. There are about 96000 students appearing for examination forxii Class and over 1. 5 lakhs for X Class in Delhi. Their dates ofexamination had been announced much earlier. All preparationsfor the conduct of the examination have been taken. The examination is starting from 3/03/1992, only three days away fromtoday. To hold examination for such a large number of studentsis a hereulian task. The question papers all ready are lying in sealedpackets to be sent into various centres. Examination halls/centreshave been booked, all arrangements for conduct of examinationmade. It is impossible to have the question papers printed all overagain in such quantities within these three days period. We aretold one question paper consists of eight pages and there are asmany as 20 or more subjects for the XII Class. The question isalso of the availability of the printer. The respondents cannotjust go to any printer. The element of secrecy has to be kept inview. Only very few people can be entrusted with the task and itis not, therefore, that any number of people can be employed. The more the people the more chances of paper being leaked outif we direct the respondents to go back to old system for theconduct of examination it will mean postponement of the examination for a month or so. Postponement will not only be in Delhibut also would be for rest of the country and for the studentsoutside India as well. The schools have also made arrangementsfor conducting examination of other classes keeping in view theboard Examination. Then the students have also to appear infurther competitive examinations. Postponement will not only be in Delhibut also would be for rest of the country and for the studentsoutside India as well. The schools have also made arrangementsfor conducting examination of other classes keeping in view theboard Examination. Then the students have also to appear infurther competitive examinations. Students must have preparedthemselves by now for these examinations and any postponementof examination may perhaps not be in (heir own interest. Thepetitioners have come to us too late in the day. We know earlieralso writ petition was filed questioning the new system of examination which was dismissed by us on21/01/1992 without evenissuing notice to the respondents. The points now raised were notfully agitated at that time and the petitioner there also did not fileany further appeal to the Supreme Court. We have since recalledthat order. " ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel submitted that despite these observations of thehigh Court the respondent has now introduced the multiple set of questionpapers all over India without having any debate on the advisability andlegality of their use and without hearing the students and parents who wouldbe affected by this experiment. He further submitted that the main reasonfor introducing the multiple set of question papers was to prevent themenace of mass copying and without considering the question whether itdeprives the students of uniform evaluation. According to the petitioner theexperiment was based only on the Madan Moban Committee Report and theseminar held for that purpose. Such a system introduces high element ofchance/luck in the examinations. Learned Counsel submitted that the Boardcannot apply different yardsticks for assessing the performance of studentsfor the same examination and cannot declare their results on the basis ofdifferent yardsticks employed by it. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submittedthat multiple set of question papers were introduced because of mass copying at various centres and after the judgment of this Court, a questionnairewas circulated all over India eliciting views of principals and teachers ofvarious schools and the respondent had received wide response in support ofthe multiple set of examination papers. Therefore. . the respondent hadintroduced this system after taking into consideration all the aspects of thematter. The respondents have filed some of the answers to the questionnairecirculated by, the respondent to the various schools in support of the saidcontention. Learned Counsel submitted that the system is extremly impersonalised and has no room for collusion or infringement. Therefore. . the respondent hadintroduced this system after taking into consideration all the aspects of thematter. The respondents have filed some of the answers to the questionnairecirculated by, the respondent to the various schools in support of the saidcontention. Learned Counsel submitted that the system is extremly impersonalised and has no room for collusion or infringement. He submittedthat the syllabus for Class X, XII for which the Central Board of Secondaryexamination conducts examination are common for all its students. Theexamination schedule is also common, the examination commences simultaneously for all the candidates all over India as well as at foreign centres. After the introduction of multiple set of question papers there has not beena single case of mass copying and the system has worked out well. Hesubmitted that the decision was taken bona fide and in the interest ofthousands of genuine students who study the entire syllabus and who do nottake a chance and prepare the most probable questions and who do notindulge in use of unfair means for the examinations. It is submitted thatthe element of chance and luck is introduced by those students who do notprepare the entire curriculum and rely on the probable questions in theexaminations. In fact it is submitted that the use of multiple set of questionpapers has improved over all standard of teaching and teaming. ( 4 ) WE have gone through the questionnaire circulated by therespondent to the principals and teachers of various schools throughout thecountry. We find that the questionnaire only concentrates on the question ofmass copying and effect of multiple set of question papers on mass copying. The respondents have not obtained the views regarding the merit of such asystem for maintaining educational standard, particularly the aspect ofunfairness and discrimination, if any, caused thereby to the students. Thusthe respondent has not received any response on the merits and de-merits ofintroducing multiple set of question papers for maintaining high level ofeducation They have also not sought the opinion from the schools regardingthe re-action of the students and parents to this new system. The academicacceptability of such a arrangement has not been a matter of public debateas yet. ( 5 ) THE central Board of Secondary Education conducts examinationfor Class X and XII all over India. The academicacceptability of such a arrangement has not been a matter of public debateas yet. ( 5 ) THE central Board of Secondary Education conducts examinationfor Class X and XII all over India. The respondent introduced the multipleset of question papers after taking into consideration the expert advicereceived by it from academicians, principals, representatives of Director ofeducation and other experts in the field of education. Nodoubt, the systemwas introduced principally to get over the malice of mass copying. Maintaining academic standards for the purposes of this examination is the jobof experts in the field. The merits and de-merits of this system for maintaining academic standards cannot be decided by this Court in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 225 of the Constitution of India because of thefactual material on the basis of which standards of examination of studentsare to be followed and the expertise is not available with the Court. Sincethe learned Counsel for the respondent very fairly agreed that the respondentis not averse to changing its decision in case it is found that the system hasnot worked well and reiterated that it was still at an experimental stage andthere is always scope of improvements we feel that it will be appropriate ifthe respondent gets opinion of cross section of the people concerned witheducation of students and also the parents before they apply this systemagain in the examinations to be held in March 1994. Learned Counselappearing for the respondent very fairly agreed that the respondent willhave no objection to circulating another questionnaire seeking opinion ofprincipals and teachers of schools all over India will be circulated andanswers obtained within two months. The principals can also be asked toseek the views of the Parents-Teacher Association in their respective schoolson this issue. This will ensure that the views of the parents and studentswill also be placed before the respondent for its consideration before anyfinal decision is taken in this matter for future. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have also made a greivance regarding mid termchange of syllabus by the Board. Learned Counsel for the respondent hasexplained that the syllabus was not changed mid term but only certain corrections were issued to give effect to certain changes in the world politicalorder and normally the syllabus is circulated in the beginning of the year andno mid-term changes are made. We find no substance in this complaint ofthe petitioners. Learned Counsel for the respondent hasexplained that the syllabus was not changed mid term but only certain corrections were issued to give effect to certain changes in the world politicalorder and normally the syllabus is circulated in the beginning of the year andno mid-term changes are made. We find no substance in this complaint ofthe petitioners. ( 7 ) NEXT it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondentshould have a system of re-valuation of the answer sheets. The need forpermitting re-valuation is sought to be emphasised on the basis of the factthat the system of evaluation of answer sheets is prone to errors which maybe on account of omission, inadvertence or sometimes intentional. Theexaminers have to evaluate a large number of answer sheets and in the verynature of things there is likelihood of mistakes and errors creeping in. Onthe basis of the result of the examination, the students have to seek furtheradmissions. The entire education system has become so highly competitivethat each mark counts for the purposes of future career of a student. Therefore, there is a pressing need that the element of error or mistake in evaluation of answer sheets be eliminated. The petitioners have cited the exampleof the University of Delhi in this connection. It is submitted that the saiduniversity had no re-valuation system earlier. However, this system wasintroduced sometime back. The re-valuation will result in ensuring that theelement of any error in the initial valuation is ruled out. It further givessatisfaction to the concerned student that his score in the examination is justand fair and thereby eliminate any heart burning. On this aspect the learnedcounsel for the respondent submitted that the system of re-valuation may begood and may have its ownwn merits, however, in view of such a large numberof students who take the examination, it is practically not possible to allowre-valuation of answer sheets. Regarding theexample of the University ofdelhi it is submitted that the number of students at the University level ismuch less as compared to the number of students involved in the examination conducted by the Board. Moreover, it is pointed out that the examination of the Board is conducted throughout the country through variouscenters and if re-valuation has to be allowed, the Board will have to have aseparate set of examiners throughout the country for this purpose. Moreover, it is pointed out that the examination of the Board is conducted throughout the country through variouscenters and if re-valuation has to be allowed, the Board will have to have aseparate set of examiners throughout the country for this purpose. Secondly,it is pointed out that the secrecy involved in the system will be difficult tomaintain and the whole exercise regarding secrecy will have to be gonethrough all over again while sending the answer sheets for re-valuation. Thiswill tremendously increase the woik of the Board and will ultimately delayfinalisation of the result for a considerable period which again will be detrimental to the students. The results have to be declared and finalised on atime bound basis and delay in finalisation of result may itself cause prejudiceto the students. ( 8 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions in this behalf. The system of re-valuation has its own advantages. The examiners arehuman beings and perform the task of examining one answer sheet afteranother continuously for long hours. The task may become monotonousand there may be genuine cases where an answer to a question is left outfrom evaluation or there may be some element of error in evaluation of answer to another question. There have been instances in the past whereexamining authority including the respondent Board had to correct someglaring errors in the results. The results in the examinations are of crucialimportance to the students and they may make or mar the career of astudent. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the advantages which asystem of re-valuation of answer sheets has. Of course there will be somepractical difficulties as pointed out on behalf of the respondent in having asystem of re-valuation. Therefore, it will be appropriate that the Boardwhich is conducting the examination should take a final decision in thisbehalf after taking all aspects into consideration. We leave the matter to theboard with a hope that the Board will seriously consider the need to introduce the system of re-valuation of answer sheets. We trust that the Boardwill earnestly and sincerely consider the merit of this system from the pointof view of the student and not reject it outright on account of the practicaldifficulties that may be experienced due to the large number of studentstaking the examination. Merits of the system far outweigh the practicaldifficulties. We trust that the Boardwill earnestly and sincerely consider the merit of this system from the pointof view of the student and not reject it outright on account of the practicaldifficulties that may be experienced due to the large number of studentstaking the examination. Merits of the system far outweigh the practicaldifficulties. So far as the question of delay is concerned the result of thestudent concerned will alone be delayed. He cannot have any grievance onthis score. ( 9 ) THE petitioners also want that the respondent should have a provision for return of answer sheets after the declaration of the results. Wesee no particular advantage to the students by return of their answer sheetsspecially in the context of the examinations under consideration. Therefore,we find no substance in this grievance of the petitioners. ( 10 ) ANOTHER grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitionis regarding disclosure of the sample answers which the respondent Boardprovides to the examiners before the process of evaluation of answer sheetsbegins. The setting of the question papers in the examination and the evaluation of the answers is the prerogative of the examining body and we do notconsider it advisable to allow any interference therein. Secondly, the disclosure of the sample answers without the return of the answer sheets to thestudents after the examinations are over, will mean nothing. On the otherhand if the answer sheets are to be returned and sample answers to the questions prepared by the Board are to be disclosed, it will lead to an unendingdebate, pacontroversy and disputes. This can neither be permitted norencouraged. Therefore, this request of the petitioners cannot be entertained. ( 11 ) THE result is that the respondent is directed to immediately issuefresh questionnaire to all the Schools affiliated with the respondent Boardand whose students take the examination conducted by it inviting the viewsof the Principals and teachers of the Schools and the Parents-Teachersassociations in the respective schools on the merits of the system of use ofmultiple set of question papers in examinations conducted by the Board. The Board will, in this respect, elicit the views more on the question of anyunfairness. arbitrariness or discrimination, involved in the use of multiple setof question papers. Besides this Public Notice be issued in prominentnewspapers inviting views on the use of multiple set of papers in the examinations conducted by the Board. The Board will, in this respect, elicit the views more on the question of anyunfairness. arbitrariness or discrimination, involved in the use of multiple setof question papers. Besides this Public Notice be issued in prominentnewspapers inviting views on the use of multiple set of papers in the examinations conducted by the Board. The respondent Board will give a carefulconsideration to all the views received by it and take a decision in this behalfkeeping the interests of the students foremost. After all the entire examination system is for assessing the merits of the students and no examinationsystem which is unfair to the students can be allowed to exist. The respondent Board will also consider the question of iniroducing the system of revaluatian of answer sheets, as discussed above. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is disposed of with these observations. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition disposed of.