Four students namely Smti Ryntihlin Jennifer War, Smti Priyanka Roy, Smti Corretta Christy Ghonglah and Smti Sandashisha Laloo represented by their grand-mother, mother, father and grand-father respectively, had approached this Court for a direction to the respondents for proper reevaluation of their answer papers by an independent panel of examiners to be appointed by Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Meghalaya, Education Department, Shillong/the respondent No.4 herein, and for publishing the result of such reevaluation within a reasonable time and also, for issuing an order for enquiry into the alleged irregularities, mal-practices and defects in the system of examination and evaluation of the answer papers. The petitioners also sought for introduction of a system of supply of photo copies of answer sheets applied for by the affected students and also for following the method of reevaluation of marks as introduced by the MS University, Tirunelveli and for maintenance of secrecy in the matter of evaluation of answer scripts by strictly following the code system. 2. According to the petitioners, they appeared at the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination, 1996 conducted by the Meghalaya Board of Secondary Education hereinafter referred as 'M. Bose' Tura, Meghalaya and the results of the said examination were declared and published in the month of June, 1997. Highlighting their academic career they reproduced their academic records and marks obtained by them as follows: “1. Name of student: Smti Ryntihlin Jennifer War. Subject First Term Assessment Final Term SSLC Examination Mathematics-I 61 84 88 61 Mathematics-II 83 100 76 36 Science-I 84 88 87 58 Science-II 86 80 77 72 Social Science-I 89 90 87 58 Social Science-II 72 56 53 50 2. Name of student: Smti Priyanka Roy. Subject First Term Assessment First Term SSLC Examination Mathematics-I 84 80 100 80 Mathematics-II 81 100 86 40 Science-I 88 84 83 62 Science-II 96 80 89 82 Social Science-I 96 98 88 72 Social Science-II 80 82 73 59 3. Name of student: Smti Coretta Chirsty Ghonglah Subject First Term Assessment First Term SSLC Examination Mathematics-I 73 86 99 80 Mathematics-II 88 86 93 55 Science-I 86 82 85 73 Science-II 85 80 79 87 Social Science-I 95 95 90 67 Social Science-II 79 84 75 62 4. Name of student: Smti Coretta Chirsty Ghonglah Subject First Term Assessment First Term SSLC Examination Mathematics-I 73 86 99 80 Mathematics-II 88 86 93 55 Science-I 86 82 85 73 Science-II 85 80 79 87 Social Science-I 95 95 90 67 Social Science-II 79 84 75 62 4. Name of student: Smti Sandeshina Laloo Subject First Term Assessment Final Term SSLC Examination Mathematics-I 97 100 94 86 Mathematics-II 86 100 80 56 Science-I 84 94 89 67 Science-II 94 96 89 79 Social Science-I 95 97 87 63 Social Science-II 73 78 75 58.” 3. It is also argued that gross injustice has been caused to them due to irregularities in the evaluation of marks and, that there is no model answer scripts provided to the examiner for evaluation of marks in respect of each of the question papers. According to them, they expected from the answers given by them that they will secure very good marks in all the subjects and even position in the examination, but unfortunately, their expectations were belied due to mishandling of the answer scripts by the examiners and giving them marks much below their expectations. Due to the introduction of Central System of Evaluation of answer scripts in respect of SSLC Examination by the M. Bose, the examiners were paid a fixed rate of allowance and they were compelled to evaluate as many as 80-90 answer scripts in a day against the standard norm of 10-12 answer script per day, thus, affecting the examiners application of their mind and privacy. It is aso alleged by the petitioners that, the MBOSE did not maintain secrecy and system of code causing a feeling amongst the public in general that markings of papers are not above suspicion and bias and, that some of the guardians even, are knwon to know the result a month ahead of publication of the results. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners, that some of the mark sheets revealed, that where a students secured over 80% in paper of Major subjects like Mathematics, he/she has barely managed to secure 40% or less in Paper II of the subject even though, according to the students, they have answered all the questions correctly. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners, that some of the mark sheets revealed, that where a students secured over 80% in paper of Major subjects like Mathematics, he/she has barely managed to secure 40% or less in Paper II of the subject even though, according to the students, they have answered all the questions correctly. This fact is highlighted in a report published in the English daily 'Meghalaya Guardian', 18.6.97 under the caption, “Evaluation system and their transparency” and another report dated 27.6.97 thus resulting widespread discontent amongst the parents and guardians of the students about the result published in June, 1997 in respect of SSLC Examination, 1996. 5. A reliance has been made by the petitioners on a talk about the money power that rules and roast and those working in the establishment are no Ceasar's wife and above board. According to the petitioners, they have applied to the M. Bose for re-evaluation of their answer scripts but they learnt from reliable sources in M.Bose that re-evaluation merely involves re-totalling of marks and verification of marksheets in question and as such, this gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the process of re-evaluation is just a formality and, that the M. Bose is not expected to admit their lapses and mistakes and to rectify the same and even the petitioners suspect that their answer scripts may be misplaced and tampered and mutilated. 6. It is also asserted that no rule in respect of mode of conducting and publishing the results of the examination and also for the qualifications, appointment and remuneration of examiners, paper setters have been framed by the M. Bose. Urging all the above points and statements, the petitioners sought for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction from the end of the Court. 7. Respondent Nos. Urging all the above points and statements, the petitioners sought for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction from the end of the Court. 7. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit in support of their cases by contending inter alia, that a student may be good in Class X in school but, may fail if syllabus for IX and X are put together, as in the Boards Examination; the examiners were all veterans with excellent qualification and have evaluated the papers most carefully resulting in awarding marks reasonably, justly and which are fair in all respects and there was no mishandling of any answer scripts by the examiners and, that the Central Evaluation System was advocated and accepted and adopted by the Heads of the Institutions in its meeting held 24.9.96 at Shillong and such acceptance was rectified by the Board in its meeting dated 12.11.96 and, that the Central Evaluation System has more advantage since the examiners do not evaluate the answers scripts in isolation at home but under the supervision and guidance of Head Examiners from whom they get immediate feed-back in cases of doubt and confusion and there is more uniformity in evaluation. 8. According to the said respondents, the examiners evaluate 40-50 scripts per day (average) depending on the nature of questions and there is no complaint from the side of the examiners about their dissatisfaction while they were discharging their duties as examiners. According to them, the Board has the system of coding of answer scripts and under the Centralised Evaluation System, steps are taken to maintain utmost accuracy and secrecy and the Board did not receive any complaint from parents or guardians of students about the conduct of SSLC examination, 96. Had there been academic lapses, the percentage of pass of the regular candidates would not have been higher than that of the private candidates. It is also the case of the said respondents that, the statements made in para 9 of the writ petition are derogatory, insulting and undermining the Board and as such, defamatory statements are to be viewed with strict discipline and decorum since the petitioners are making statements without substantiating with evidence. 9. It is also the case of the said respondents that, the statements made in para 9 of the writ petition are derogatory, insulting and undermining the Board and as such, defamatory statements are to be viewed with strict discipline and decorum since the petitioners are making statements without substantiating with evidence. 9. It is also urged that, the examination system and the Board is fair, just and reasonable and, that the Board has never exploited or oppressed anyone and, that the Board has rightly framed the related rules and regulation for the HSLCE under section 23 of the M. Bose Act, 1973 and later on, the Board have adopted the same rules and regulation by changing the nomenclature namely, 'The Rules and Regulations for Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination etc'. It is also alleged that the Board follows a top secret system for evaluation of answer scripts which is changed from year to year and the code system is confidential matter which is not allowed to be known to the public at large. It is also stated that the petitioners have failed in exhausting the most efficacious and adequate remedy from the Board itself. 10. Shri NK Deb, learned counsel for he petitioner, contended that the rules namely, Rules and Regulation for the HSLC Examination' which is different from 'SSLC Examination' at which the petitioners appeared and the Admit Card and mark sheet were given and besides the aforesaid rules, it is incomplete as it does not include (a) the procedure for the system of spot evaluation, (b) the a standard norms for valuing answer papers and (c) code system, and no detailed procedure for a centralised evaluation was prescribed and no orders/instructions detailing the procedure was issued by the Board. 11. The learned counsel further argued, that the petitioners are brilliant students and they always secured in the class examinations more than 80% marks but because of the system of evaluation followed by the M. Bose as well as due to mis-handling of the answer scripts by the examiners their student careers have been seriously affected. 12. 11. The learned counsel further argued, that the petitioners are brilliant students and they always secured in the class examinations more than 80% marks but because of the system of evaluation followed by the M. Bose as well as due to mis-handling of the answer scripts by the examiners their student careers have been seriously affected. 12. Shri NK Deb, learned counsel, supporting the case of the writ petitioners highlighted all the statements and allegations made in the writ petition and submitted that an appropriate direction should be issued from the end of this Court for proper re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner/students by an independent panel of examiners which is to be constituted or appointed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Meghalaya, Education Department/ the respondent No. 4 herein and published the result of it within a reasonable time. The learned counsel further argued, that an enquiry by conducted into the irregularities, malpractices and defects in the system of examination and evaluation d of answer scripts and also, for a direction to the respondents particularly respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to introduce the method of re-evaluation as introduced and adopted by the MS University, Tirunelveli. 13. At the hearing, Shri PK Deb, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted, that the M. Bose has the system of coding of answer scripts and the Board follows, rather adopted the Centralised Evaluation System and maintain top secrecy. The learned counsel further argued, that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners are not properly represented by their father, grandmother, mothers etc. as required by law. 14. According to Shri Deb, Examination Committee, Syllabus Committee and Education Committee were duly constituted/appointed at the relevant time and there was no lapses on the part of the Board while conducting the said examination. The learned counsel further submitted, that the Board did not receive any complaint either from the guardians or examiners but the writ petitioners made a baseless statement that a feeling has been created amongst the general public that marking of papers are not above suspicion and bias. And that not a single independent person/persons came forward except the present four petitioners and their parents/guardians raising objection and displeasure in the mode of the said examination conducted by the M. Bose. 15. And that not a single independent person/persons came forward except the present four petitioners and their parents/guardians raising objection and displeasure in the mode of the said examination conducted by the M. Bose. 15. According to Shri PK Deb, there are related provisions in respect to re-scrutiny of answer scripts after declaration of results as enshrined under the Chapter namely 'Regulations on admission to and conduct of SSLC in Arts and Science Courses' under the Rules and Regulations for the HSLC examination. Provisions had been laid down by the Board for correction, if any, in the mark sheets in the related results of HSLC Examination 96 urging all the students/candidates in the matter. Under the said provision, the document should be submitted in original to the Controller of Examination within a period of one month from the date of commencement of the result for the purpose of correction, if any, in the related mark-sheets. But, the writ petitioners did not avail such opportunity but simply approached this Court without any justification, Shri Deb contended. 16. This Court is to see and examine as to whether there is proper system of coding of answer scripts and the evaluation system is reasonable and proper. The contesting respondents, particularly respondent Nos 2 and 3 stated as hereunder: “... The Board has the system of coding of the answer scripts. The coding was done in the following way : Under the present system of coding followed by the Board, several schools are clustered under one centre, for instance, under Shillong IV, there will be candidates from several schools as well as private candidates. Their Roll Nos. are given under Shillong IV and not under their respective schools. Therefore, it is not easy for the examiners to identify the candidates or their schools. Further the Head Examiners did not allot the answer scripts of the particular centre to the examiners drawn from the schools under that centre under specific instructions. This is a part of mechanism to maintain anonymity which is the best system according to the Board. It is a matter of secret policy adopted by the Board which is changed from year to year.” The said respondents further highlighted about the Centralised Evaluation 'System for which they made the following statements : “Under the Centralised Evaluation System, steps are taken to maintain utmost accuracy and secrecy. It is a matter of secret policy adopted by the Board which is changed from year to year.” The said respondents further highlighted about the Centralised Evaluation 'System for which they made the following statements : “Under the Centralised Evaluation System, steps are taken to maintain utmost accuracy and secrecy. This may be clearly explained as follows : First stage - Answer scripts are not allowed to be taken out of the room where evaluation is made. No one is allowed to enter these rooms except the examiners. The examiners are honest and respectable with high reputation and they are selected only after receiving due recommendations from the Heads of Institutions. These examiners never bring any paper inside and they do not taken any paper out side the rooms. It may further be mentioned that the doors of the examination halls/rooms are opened only in presence of an official of the Board and after the entry of all examiners any further entry was prohibited. They are immediately locked after the work is over for the day. Second stage - In the next stage in order to verify the correctness of the marks allotted by the examiners, scrutiniser are appointed. Experts and more efficient among the examiners are retained as scrutinisers. They are specialized persons among the examiners who are selected by the Head Examiners. Third stage-The third stage comprises the tabulation system. For the purpose of maintaining top secrecy in the system, a separate statement showing system of tabulation of this Board is hereby submitted to the Court. Between the second and third stages, the answer scripts are shifted to another room under the control of the Controller of Examination. After the tabulation works are over, the results are compiled by the Tabulators which are further checked by the Super Tabulators in different sets. Only 2 or 3 dates are allotted for each Super Tabulator in order to minimize the strain and to ensure accuracy and secrecy. The Super Tabulators scrutinise the marks and complete the totaling in different rooms. Therefore, there is no chance of knowing the results unless all the sets are together. The results are finalised after receiving the 'grace mark principle' as decided by the Board. The Super Tabulators scrutinise the marks and complete the totaling in different rooms. Therefore, there is no chance of knowing the results unless all the sets are together. The results are finalised after receiving the 'grace mark principle' as decided by the Board. The purpose of which is to see that the candidates, who have secured minimum aggregate pass marks but have failed only for a few marks, to pass and continue their studies. It is only after the grace marks are awarded to deserving candidates the results (i.e. the sets) are submitted to the Controller of Examinations, which are typed and the sets are sent part by part to the Super Tabulators for comparing and for making corrections wherever necessary. Since the tabulation system followed by the Board is more or less the same every year, the written report is being submitted to the Court separately for maintaining secrecy. . The proposal for computers to facilitate processing of various steps of exami­nation works is also ahead, but this system has yet not been materialised due to paucity of funds. The Board has now proposed to install computers in near future.” 17. On further perusal of the available materials on record it has been revealed that the under the Central Evaluation System all the examiners are called to a place fixed by the Board and the examiners have to evaluate answer scripts under the supervision and guidance of Head Examiners and there is more uniformity in evaluation and the load of re-examination at the time of scrutiny is immensely reduced under Central Evaluation System. Rather, examiners are accommodated free of cost in the Examiner's Hostels and the Meghalaya Board of School Education Guest House, and they are paid TA and DA at their own grade in addition to the remuneration for evaluation of answer scripts and they evaluate e 40 to 50 scripts each per day on an average depending upon the nature of questions, and as such all these factors contribute to the early publication of the result of the said SSLC examination, 1996 on 16th, 1997. 18. In my considered view, there is no irregularity or arbitrariness on the part of the Board in the above process. 18. In my considered view, there is no irregularity or arbitrariness on the part of the Board in the above process. It is well settled that High Court should be slow in interfering with the decisions of the educational authorities because, normally, matters falling under their jurisdiction should be left to their decisions. In this regard a reliance can be made on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Principal, Patna College, Patna & others vs. Kalyan Srinivas Raman reported in AIR 1966 SC 707 , wherein the Apex Court held thus : “...where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of Certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept...” It is also the rule of prudence that he should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. 19. It is stated by the petitioners that they have since applied to the Meghalaya Board of School Education (M. Bose) for re-evaluation of all their answer scripts, a but it is learnt from reliable sources in M. Bose that re-evaluations merely involves re-totaling of the marks and verification of marksheet in question and some of the guardians are known to know the result a month ahead of publication of the result but the petitioners could not cite a single instance/example or name or any person/persons/guardians who knew the results a month ahead of the publication of the result. Provisions have been laid down under the Rules and Regulations for Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination for scrutiny of answer scripts after declaration of results and the information have been laid down and published for all concerned for correction, if any, in the mark sheets for which the documents should be submitted in original to the Controller of Examinations, within a period of one month from the date of announcement of results, under the related results of the said Examination of 1996 as seen in the document marked as Annexure H and Annexure N to the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2. The related provisions are quoted below : “4. Re-scrutiny of answer scripts after declaration of results : (i) Request for re-scrutiny should be in writing, giving the name of examination and year, Roll No. and the subject (s) concerned. (ii) A fee of Rs.100 (Rupees one hundred) for each paper either by IPO/ Bank Draft payable to Board should be attached. (iii) Re-scrutiny shall be within two months from the date of declaration of result.” 20. It is well settled principles of law that the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere if there existed an equally prompt and efficacious alternatively remedy, and the petitions containing controversial questions of facts are not generally entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As discussed above there is an alternative remedy for the petitioners for rescrutiny of their answer scripts after declaration of results. At this stage, I hereby recall a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Thansingh Nathmal vs. Superintendent of Taxes, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419 . In that case Justice Shah, J. stated thus : “The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restriction ...but the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain well imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdictional is not intended as an alternative remedy or relying which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by the statute. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain well imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdictional is not intended as an alternative remedy or relying which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by the statute. Ordinarily, the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226 where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy ... The High Court does not therefore act as a Court of appeal against the decision of a Court or Tribunal to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by a statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another Tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the matter provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created by the statute to be bypassed and leave the party applying to it to seek resort to that a machinery so set up.” 21. For the reasons an discussions made above, this Court do not think that the respondents Meghalaya Board of School Education can be said to have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in the process of the aforesaid examination of 1996. In the result this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly it stands dismissed. 22. Despite dismissal of this writ petition, I am constrained to make the following observations and direction considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 23. From paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is seen that the petitioners have applied to the M. Bose for re-evaluation of all their answer scripts. If the respondents/Meghalaya Board of School Education did not dispose of their applications for re-evaluation filed by the petitioners, the said respondents shall dispose of the same and to make re-scrutiny of their answer scripts within a period of one month from today and to intimate the result of it to all the petitioners. No costs.