JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, J. After the result of the Higher Secondary Examination, 2002 was published a few writ petitions were filed by the students or by their guardians contending that the marks obtained by them or by their wards in various subjects as shown in the mark sheets issued in their favour or in favour of their wards are much less than what was expected. Having regard to such contention the answer scripts of many a examinees, who had approached this Court, had been called for. When the answer scripts were produced in many cases it appeared that the marks actually obtained by the examinees have not been properly reflected in the mark sheets issued to them. The Council, was thus, directed to rectify the mistakes and to issue fresh mark sheets. However, in most of the cases it appeared that there is no just reason for judicial intervention and accordingly those writ petitions were dismissed. The cases, where mistakes were detected, received wide publication in newspapers. That prompted filing of a large number of writ petitions wherein the petitioners expressed grievances in relation to marks obtained by them or by their wards not only in the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Council but also examinations conducted by the Calcutta University as well as the Madhyamik examination conducted 'by the Board. This Court also started receiving a large number of letters from the examinees or from their parents voicing similar grievances. Although initially the grievance was principally that the marks actually obtained have not been properly reflected in the mark sheets issued, but later on the ambit of the grievances expanded. Many of them have been dealt with individually. However, I thought that the issue is such that a few of such grievances should be dealt with simultaneously and accordingly I have decided to deal with these cases in one judgment. 2. In W.P. No. 10673(W) of 2002 the petitioner, Rituparna Chatterjee, appeared in Madhyamik Examination 1998 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and obtained 41 marks out of 100 in English. In order to appear at the said Examination she got herself admitted to l\laharaja Cossimbazar Sabitri Sikshalaya, a recognized institution. 2. In W.P. No. 10673(W) of 2002 the petitioner, Rituparna Chatterjee, appeared in Madhyamik Examination 1998 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and obtained 41 marks out of 100 in English. In order to appear at the said Examination she got herself admitted to l\laharaja Cossimbazar Sabitri Sikshalaya, a recognized institution. Thereafter she got herself admitted to Maharani Kasiswari College, again a recognized institution, for the purpose of preparing herself to appear at the Higher Secondary Examination-2000 conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Examination. She appeared at the said Examination and passed in all five subjects except English. She obtained 16 marks out of 100 and 15 marks out of 100 in the first and second English papers respectively at the said Examination. She appeared as a compartmental student in English in the Higher Secondary Examination-2000 conducted by the said Council, when, once again, she failed since she obtained 20 out of 100 marks and 19 out of 100 marks in the first and second English papers respectively at the said Examination. Being aggrieved by such result she applied through her College for Post Publication Scrutiny. It is her contention that despite receipt of appropriate fees paid by her through the College, she has not yet been intimated of the outcome of the Post Publication Scrutiny as had been applied for by her. She, thus, appeared as a compartmental student in the Higher Secondary Examination 2002 for the third time, when, also she was unsuccessful for she obtained 23 out of 100 marks and 21 out of 100 marks in the first and second English papers respectively at the said Examination. There is no dispute that her efforts of 2000 in respect of other subjects will have no effect for she failed to succeed in English papers for three times. In order to pass Higher Secondary Examination, she would now be required to appear in all the subjects afresh. I, therefore, directed the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Council to take instructions in the matter. The learned counsel personally went through the records and satisfied himself that there is no mistake in the mark sheets. In other words it was reported that the marks actually obtained have been correctly reflected in the mark sheets issued. I, therefore, directed the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Council to take instructions in the matter. The learned counsel personally went through the records and satisfied himself that there is no mistake in the mark sheets. In other words it was reported that the marks actually obtained have been correctly reflected in the mark sheets issued. It was not urged on behalf of Rituparna that she is entitled to higher marks than what she has been awarded. It was, however, urged that there is no justification for failing Rituparna in Higher Secondary Examination for she could not acquire pass marks in English. It was also urged that there is no reason to make it compulsory to have qualifying marks in English for passing Higher Secondary Examination. It was contended that the other Boards and Public Examinations of similar nature do not insist that one has to obtain qualifying marks in English for passing Higher Secondary or equivalent or similar Examinations. 3. By virtue of the power granted to the Council under sub-section(3) read with clauses (d), (b) and (k) of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Act, 1975, it has made with the approval of the Government in terms of sub-section (4) of section 21 of the said Act the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (Admission and Allied Matters) Regulations, 1987. Clause 6 of the said Regulations provides that from 1984-85 session onwards a student aspiring to pass Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the said Council should study two languages, one from group-A and the other from group-B. It further says that one of the languages must be English. The languages in group-A are 15 in number, which includes English. The other languages contained in group-A are Bengali, Nepali, Hindi, Urdu, Assamese, etc. The languages contained in group-B are English, Bengali, Hindi, Alternative English and Nepali. It further provides that a student who takes Engli::h as a group-A subject will have to take either Bengali, Hindi, Nepali or Alternative English as group-B language subject to the condition that Alternative English shall be allowed only to a student who has not offered any of the languages other than English as specified under group-A languages in his lower level examination the passing or which makes him/her eligible for admission in the Higher Secondary Course of the Council. It is, therefore, not necessary that if a person takes English as the language from group-A, he will have to take either Bengali or Hindi or Nepali as a group-B language. He can take Alternative English and can thus study English alone as language. But that is not possible for a person who has taken any other language. In other words a person cannot pass Higher Secondary Examination by studying Bengali or Hindi or Nepali alone. One cannot pass Higher Secondary Examination without studying English language and without passing the examination conducted at the Higher Secondary level to assess the depth of such study. 4. At this stage I think it would be appropriate to take note of a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in re: Pratul Kumar Sinha vs. President, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, reported in 1991(II) CHN 545 . In that case it was observed by the learned Single Judge that it is difficult on the part of a child to pick up a foreign language even modestly unless he is taught such language at the primary level because the first five years at the primary stage are the golden years when a child can grasp the ideas quickly and sharply. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that those who are financially affluent generally send their children and wards for education in English Medium Schools and rarely their children or wards rot in Vernacular Medium Schools. It was stated that those who can afford English Medium Schools and those who cannot afford English Medium Schools are creating two classes amongst the self-same society. The Court directed the Government of West Bengal to take a policy decision relating to the deteriorating condition of standard of English at the Secondary and Higher Secondary level after abolishing the same from the Primary Education level. 5. Subsequent thereto a One-man Committee on English in Primary Education in West Bengal was constituted. The said Committee submitted a report on 21st September, 1998 and recommended that teaching of English be introduced from Class III at the primary level. In the report it was found as a fact that the people demand that their wards do learn English. Prior thereto the Report of the Education Commission, Government of West Bengal was submitted in 1992. The said Committee submitted a report on 21st September, 1998 and recommended that teaching of English be introduced from Class III at the primary level. In the report it was found as a fact that the people demand that their wards do learn English. Prior thereto the Report of the Education Commission, Government of West Bengal was submitted in 1992. In that report it was noted that if only teaching of English commencing from Class VI had been relatively more effective, the reservations about the discarding of English at the primary level would perhaps have disappeared in due course. Therefore, in 1992 it was a fact found by a Fact Finding Authority that the English teaching mechanism in the Secondary Schools is ineffective. The report of the One-man Committee on English suggested introduction of English from Class III at the primary level. It has not been shown that English has been introduced from Class III or by reason of such introduction or by reason of changes effected in the teaching mechanism at the secondary level, the quality has improved. In India, which is a multilinguistic society, English is a common language in all its parts. Therefore, in order to do good at the national level, one must know English, but if one is not so interested, for the teaching mechanism is not so effective, he would not pass the higher school level, is somewhat not appreciable. The Regulations made by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations for the Indian School Certificate Examination, which is equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination, stipulate that pass certificates will be awarded to the candidates who at one and the same examination attain the pass standard in four or more subjects, which must include the subject English. For a student passing such an examination, it is not necessary that the student must have to pass in his second language, which may be his mother tongue. The Council for Indian School Certificate Examination has in fact made English as the first language of its students, i.e. their mother tongue. 6. I quiet appreciate that there is an effort to make a student proficient in his mother tongue. Language is the medium of expression as well as the medium of learning. It is easier for a person to become proficient in his own mother tongue. 6. I quiet appreciate that there is an effort to make a student proficient in his mother tongue. Language is the medium of expression as well as the medium of learning. It is easier for a person to become proficient in his own mother tongue. It is difficult for a person to master a language, which is totally dissimilar to his mother language. English IS a language, which is totally dissimilar to Bengali or Hindi or. Nepali. As will be evidenced hereafter Bengali is an accepted medium of expression as well as medium of learning even in college studies. English teaching mechanism was not available until 21 gt September, 1998 at the primary level, i.e. upto Class V. If the report of the One-man Committee on English has been implemented, then, those who were studying in Class III in 1998 started learning English from Class III. The students, who completed primary education before 1998, did not at all study English upto Class V. They were introduced to English only in Class VI. The petitioner is one of such students. The report of 1992, referred to above, do suggests that the English teaching mechanism available in secondary level, i.e. from Classes VI to X, is not effective. By studying English for six years from Classes VI to XII through the system available, without thoroughly improving the same, it is difficult for a person to be proficient in English but still then it is being insisted that one must study English at the Higher Secondary level and should pass in English in the Higher Secondary Examination to be declared to have passed Higher Secondary Examination. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately discussed below while dealing with other writ petitions. I think when the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination insists that the students passing the Indian School Certificate Examination, which is equivalent to Higher Secondary Examination, should pass in English, which is treated by the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, as pointed out below, as the mother language of the students appearing for Indian School Certificate Examination, there is no justification of not applying the same standard for the students appearing in Higher Secondary Examination and at least to give an option to the students appearing in such Examination. It would be appropriate to give at least an option to the students to take English as a compulsory subject or not to take the same. It is to be kept in mind that to achieve proficiency in two totally dissimilar languages is not a very easy task and at the same time all the students do not cherish to become nuclear physists. 7. The Council and the State is accordingly directed to look into the matter and to come out with a definite policy by March, 2003. 8. W.P. No. 10673 (W) of 2002 is, thus, disposed of. 9. In W.P. No. 11112(W) of 2002 the petitioner, Shri Abhijit Sarkar, passed M.A. Examination in English in Group-A from the University of Calcutta in the year 1996 as a non-collegiate student and secured 46% marks. He, thereafter, appeared in Part-I M.A. Examination in English in Group-B conducted by the University of Calcutta in the year 2000 and succeeded upon securing 45% marks. In November, 2001 he appeared in Part-II M.A. Examination in Group-B in English, but, when the result thereof was published in the first week of March, 2002, it was disclosed that the result of the petitioner is incomplete. It is the case of the petitioner that on enquiry he came to learn that his result was incomplete because he was shown in the records of the University to be absent in all the 8 papers attempted by him. It is also the case of the petitioner that he protested against such contention of the University and thereafter on 19th July, 2002 his result was published when it was shown that the petitioner was unsuccessful at the said Examination for he has scored 15, 12, 16 and 12 marks in 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th papers respectively out of 100 marks each. The petitioner though wanted to apply for post publication re-examination of his answer papers, but could not do so as he did not get the requisite marks for applying for the same in terms of the Rules made by the University. In the writ petition he was contended that he could not get so low marks and accordingly he is anxious as to whether his answer scripts were properly examined or not. 10. In the writ petition he was contended that he could not get so low marks and accordingly he is anxious as to whether his answer scripts were properly examined or not. 10. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has not been specifically stated as to why the result of petitioner was incomplete while the results of the others were published. It has, however, been stated that in the 5th ,6th, 7th and 8th paper the petitioner obtained 15, 12, 16 and 12 marks respectively totaling to 55 marks. It has further been stated that since the petitioner obtained less than 25% marks in each of the four papers he had appeared, 5 marks for every paper, i.e., 20 marks in aggregate had been deducted from the marks obtained by him and the same has also been reflected in the mark sheet issued in his favour. It has been stated that each of the four papers was divided Into two halves and accordingly the petitioner answered in 8 answer scripts. It has further been stated that each of those answer scripts had been examined by two separate Examiners appointed for that purpose by the Board of Examiners. It has also been stated that since two Examiners were to examine one answer script, the examiners had been directed by Rules not to enter marks on the body of the scripts or on the cover page. They were asked to enter the same in separate forms supplied to them with a request to put their signature on the answer scripts after evaluation of the merit of the answers. It was stated that those two Examiners were required to submit the marks in two separate tabulation sheets and to send the same to two tabulators in separate envelops. It was stated that according to the Rules if marks awarded by two examiners in a paper or half of a paper differed by 15% or more, the same was required to be assessed by third examiner and the average of the two closer marks awarded is then taken to be the marks obtained by the candidate. It was also stated that in the absence of two closer marks awarded, average of all the three marks awarded was taken to be the marks obtained. If the average mean amounts to fraction, the next higher integer was taken as the marks obtained. It was also stated that in the absence of two closer marks awarded, average of all the three marks awarded was taken to be the marks obtained. If the average mean amounts to fraction, the next higher integer was taken as the marks obtained. It was stated that in respect of four answer scripts, two Examiners differed by 15% or more and accordingly four answer scripts were sent to the third Examiner and ultimately the marks obtained by the petitioner have been determined. It was stated that the first Examiner awarded 11 marks to the petitioner in the second answer script of paper VI while the second Examiner awarded 3 marks to him and the third Examiner awarded 4 marks and accordingly marks obtained by the petitioner was determined as a whole on the basis of average of 3 and 4 marks. Similar particulars have been furnished in relation to second answer script of paper VII and both the answer scripts of paper VIII. This exercise may have taken time and accordingly the petitioner's result was incomplete when the results of the others were published. However, that has not been categorically stated, for the same exercise must have been adopted in relation to other examinees. Be that as it may, although no affidavit-in-reply has been filed yet it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the answer scripts of the petitioner have not been examined at all for it is possible that those have been misplaced. This submission was made having regard to the fact that in the affidavit-in-opposition it was not categorically denied that the petitioner was informed by the University that his results are incomplete for he was absent. In that view of the matter, I called upon the University to produce the answer scripts of the petitioner. Those have been produced. The answer scripts and connected papers depict that the same have been examined in the manner as has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. In order to support the manner of examination as depicted in the affidavit-in-opposition the University has annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition instructions to the Examiners, contents whereof exactly suggest the manner in which the papers of the petitioner have been assessed. In order to support the manner of examination as depicted in the affidavit-in-opposition the University has annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition instructions to the Examiners, contents whereof exactly suggest the manner in which the papers of the petitioner have been assessed. Inasmuch as it had not been contended that the petitioner could not be awarded the marks, which had been awarded to him for the answers given by him were correct, there was nothing to be done in the instant writ petition, i.e., in W.P. No. 11112(W) of 2002. The same is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. It is, however, somewhat not appreciable that the petitioner was entitled to zero, eight and one as was assessed by the first, second and third Examiners respectively in the first answer script in paper VIII. Furthermore, a regular candidate taught by the University is securing zero in an English paper at the M.A. level is also not appreciable. In a given case if an examinee has no clue to the question, he may give irrelevant answers and accordingly may get zero even in a language paper like English, but, while one Examiner is of the view that he is entitled to zero and the other is of the view that he is entitled to eight, is somewhat unacceptable. It shows that he must have given some answers entitling him some marks and accordingly was not clueless to the question altogether, while the other Examiner found his answers totally out of context. This tells upon the method of teaching as well as the method of evaluation. I would not like to comment upon the method of examination, for an expert body like the University must for some reason has embarked upon the mechanism of examination as mentioned above but is it not necessary to make the teachers as well as the Examiners more responsible and accountable, lest it may not be said that for the whims and incapacity of a teacher or an Examiner the cherished dreams of a student is lost. Then again when a rule is made, it must be followed to its strictest terms at least by the framer of the rule. In the second answer script in Paper V the first Examiner gave the petitioner 5 marks. For the self-same answer script the second Examiner gave the petitioner 11 marks. That is what has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. In the second answer script in Paper V the first Examiner gave the petitioner 5 marks. For the self-same answer script the second Examiner gave the petitioner 11 marks. That is what has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. 11 is more than double of 5. There was, therefore, certainly a difference of opinion of two Examiners exceeding 15%. Still then this answer script was not placed before the third Examiner. Then again the first Examiner gave a total of 11 marks to the petitioner in Paper V, while the second Examiner gave him a total of 18 marks. The difference was more than 15%. The answer scripts in Paper V were not placed before the third Examiner. The question is why? No attempt was made to explain the same. This conduct does not repose public confidence. Furthermore, why average of two nearest and not the average of all the three marks? By taking average of two marks the University itself is holding out that it does not have confidence in the Examiner, whose marking is left out. The University must look into those aspects of the matter. 12. W.P. No. l1112(W) of 2002 is, thus, disposed of. 13. Smt. Sharmila Karmaker, the petitioner in W.P. No. 10671(W) of2002, got herself admitted in Jogomaya Debi College for the purpose of preparing herself to obtain B.Sc. Honours in Economics from the Calcutta University. She appeared B.Sc. Part-I Examination-200l for the session 1999~2000 and obtained 156 marks out of 400 marks in Honours papers. She obtained 31 marks out of 100 marks in Mathematics, which was a general paper. According to rules made by the Calcutta University the petitioner could apply for re-examination of not more than two Honours theoretical papers or two theoretical papers in general course including papers in language group provided she had secured at least 40% of the total marks in the remaining Honours papers or papers in general course including papers in language group, as the case may be. Since she has obtained 40% and above marks in papers II, III and IV of the Honours subjects, she applied for re-examination of papers I and III of the Honours subjects. In the writ petition the first grievance of the petitioner is that she has not yet received any result of re-examination as was applied for by her upon payment of appropriate fees. In the writ petition the first grievance of the petitioner is that she has not yet received any result of re-examination as was applied for by her upon payment of appropriate fees. It is the further case of the petitioner that she appeared in B.Sc. Part II Examination held in the year 2002 and got the mark sheet on 17th July, 2002 where it was shown that she has obtained 43 marks out of 100 in paper V, 5 marks out of 100 in paper VI, 42 marks out of 100 in paper VII and 41 marks out of 100 in paper VIII aggregating to 131 marks out of 400. In the mark sheet it was shown that she has obtained 159 marks out of 400 in the Part-I Honours Examination, when, in fact, she obtained 156 marks. By reason thereof she obtained a total 290 marks out of 800 and accordingly could not retain the honours and as such she was declared to have passed B.Sc. Examination as a Pass Candidate. In the petition the petitioner has contended that she attempted and answered almost all the questions in paper VI and expected minimum 50 marks and accordingly she is apprehensive that by reason of some mistake, computer or otherwise, she has not been properly shown to have received marks, which she in fact has obtained. She has also contended that in papers V, VII and VIII she has been awarded 43, 42 and 41 respectively, which is an arithmetical series in a descending order and accordingly suspects that the same is also the outcome of some mistake, computer or otherwise. The petitioner has contended that though she obtained 156 marks in B.Sc. Part I Examination, in the mark sheet issued for the B.Sc. Honours Part-I Examination, she had been shown to have obtained 159 marks in B.Sc. Part-II Examination and accordingly the petitioner has reason to believe that the said mark sheet is a wrong mark sheet. Having regard to the nature of controversies raised, I directed the VIth paper of the petitioner to be produced. That was produced and the petitioner and her counsel looked into the same. It was then submitted that the Examiner has not properly examined the answers. It was also submitted that the petitioner gave correct answers, but she was awarded either no marks for such answers or very little marks therefor. That was produced and the petitioner and her counsel looked into the same. It was then submitted that the Examiner has not properly examined the answers. It was also submitted that the petitioner gave correct answers, but she was awarded either no marks for such answers or very little marks therefor. In order to substantiate the same the petitioner submitted the question paper, a script containing model answers to the questions attempted by the petitioner and the textbook to support that the answers given by the petitioner were correct. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the result of the re-examination as was applied for by the petitioner in respect of two papers of the Part- I Examination, has been sent to the petitioner Under Certificate of Posting. He submitted that by reason of change effected during the course of re-examination the marks obtained by the petitioner in Part-I Examination stood revised from 156 to 159. He added that once an attempt was made by the University to increase the fees for re-examination with a view to send the results thereof by registered post, but in view of resistance by the students of the University, the same could not be materialized. He further submitted that if the petitioner wants she can have the fresh mark sheet of her Part-I Examination. It was submitted by the counsel of the University that in order to assess the merit of the answers given by the petitioner, the University engaged an Examiner. The Examiner duly Examined the answer scripts of the petitioner and awarded marks commensurate with the merit of the answers given by the petitioner. He added that those marks have been duly reflected in the answer scripts as well as in the mark sheet issued in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that it would be improper on the part of the Court to go into the merit of the answers as well as the standard of assessment. 14. From the answer scripts it appears that the petitioner attempted to answer questions No.2, 4, 5, 9, 11 and 8. Question No.2 had two parts and for each part 8 marks had been allotted. The question was to account for commercialization of Indian Agriculture in the 19th Century and to analyze its effects on the Indian Economy. 14. From the answer scripts it appears that the petitioner attempted to answer questions No.2, 4, 5, 9, 11 and 8. Question No.2 had two parts and for each part 8 marks had been allotted. The question was to account for commercialization of Indian Agriculture in the 19th Century and to analyze its effects on the Indian Economy. The petitioner was awarded one and half marks for the first part and half mark for the second particle The answers given by the petitioner in the answer scripts and the model answer prepared by her are different in substance. Although the tables upon which the petitioner has relied in the answer scripts as well as in the model answers are identical but in the answer scripts the source of the information contained in the tables had not been supplied, which however, has been supplied in the model answer. However, the answers given in the answer scripts do convey to some extent, though not in totality, what has been conveyed in the model answers. At the same time, as aforesaid, the merit of the contents do differ. In those circumstances it would not be proper for a Court of Law to come to ~ conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to more than what she has been awarded. It is to be kept in mind that thousands of people do appear in these examinations. The answer scripts of those examinees are required to be examined by hundreds of examiners. Neither the outlook, nor the knowledge, nor the perception of all examiners is same. They do examine answer scripts to the best of their ability. While it is possible that if the answer scripts of the petitioner had been examined by some other examiners, she might have got little more marks but having regard to the fact that the examiner has no personal interest in ruining the career of the petitioner, it would be unjust to hold that the examiner, who is unknown to the petitioner and has no connection with her even remotely would wilfully do injustice to her. In answer to questions No. 11 and 8 the petitioner obtained zero. Question No. 11 was "critically discuss the policies adopted by the Government of India to control inflationary pressures in the economy since July, 1991". The petitioner has not prepared any model answer for question No. 11. In answer to questions No. 11 and 8 the petitioner obtained zero. Question No. 11 was "critically discuss the policies adopted by the Government of India to control inflationary pressures in the economy since July, 1991". The petitioner has not prepared any model answer for question No. 11. She has thus accepted in principal that the answer given by her did not answer the question that was put to her. Similar is the case in relation to question No.8. In view of what has been discussed above, there is nothing further to be done in this writ petition except to the extent mentioned below. However, the petitioner has raised genuine grievance in respect of assessment of the answers given by her in questions No.2 and 4, for which she has prepared model answers and supported the same with the textbooks. Apart from what has been stated above there is no necessity to discuss any further on such specific grievance of the petitioner. But, at the same time I feel some measure must be taken by the University to allay the fear of its students to the effect that their papers are not been assessed properly by the examiners appointed by University. I have a suggestion to that effect. If model answers to every question is prepared by the University after the examinations are over and handed over to the examiners, there will be a complete guideline for the examiners in the matter of awarding marks. While preparing such model answers the extent of the answer, which would entail fractional marks, if indicated, that would also help the examiners. That would reduce the workload of the examiners and at the same time make them accountable for if on re-examination it transpires that an examiner has not followed the instructions of the University in awarding marks, appropriate steps may be taken against the examiner. If these model answers are published by the University after the results are declared, that would also give a clear indication to the future students as to what kind of answer the University is looking for and accordingly help the students to prepare themselves in a proper manner. With that I would also recommend that the University should give an option to the students to have their re-examination results sent to them by registered post instead of under certificate of posting upon payment of appropriate registration cost. With that I would also recommend that the University should give an option to the students to have their re-examination results sent to them by registered post instead of under certificate of posting upon payment of appropriate registration cost. There is yet another aspect in this matter. A student, who had been permitted to enroll himself in Honours course in an affiliated college, should be deemed to be a good student having regard to his past performance. For he has not been able to concentrate in his studies during one year for some reason or the other and accordingly he could not maintain his standard for one year , he would loose his honour, is also not proper. He must be given an opportunity to rectify himself for the purpose of re-gaining his lost glory. In the instant case the petitioner though wanted to be a Honours Graduate, has become a Pass Graduate for she did not do properly in the Part-II B.Sc. Honours Examination, which in turn, show that her effort for one year before she had appeared in the Part-II Honours Examination was not upto the mark. In such a case an option should be given to her to re-appear in the next Part-II Honours Examination. It is not known if the Rules of the University do permit the same, if not, the University should consider this aspect of the matter and if upon consideration decides to embark upon such a course, should permit the petitioner to disown the pass graduation as awarded to her and to permit her to re-appear in Part-II Honours Examination-2003. W. P. No.10671 (W) of2002 is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction upon the University of Calcutta to forthwith but not later than 15 days from today to communicate by registered post to the petitioner in W.P. No.10671 (W) of 2002 the result of re-examination of the petitioner's Part-I Examination and also the mark sheet therefor. 15. Deblina Banerjee, the petitioner in W.P. No.10600 (W) of 2002, passed Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination) , 2000 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, in first division with Star. She obtained 637 out of 800 marks. In order to appear at the said Examination the petitioner got herself admitted to Shri Shikshayatan, Secondary Section. She appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination-2002 conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. She obtained 637 out of 800 marks. In order to appear at the said Examination the petitioner got herself admitted to Shri Shikshayatan, Secondary Section. She appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination-2002 conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. In order to prepare herself for the said Examination the petitioner also studied in the self-same school. When the result of the Higher Secondary Examination was published in July, 2002, the petitioner found that she has been awarded 28 marks in 1st paper theory and 35 marks in 2nd paper theory in Chemistry and 26 marks in 1st paper theory and 29 marks in 2nd paper theory in Physics. She also found that she has obtained 50 marks in first paper and 44 marks in second paper Bengali and 60 marks in first paper and 60 marks in second paper English. The petitioner expected more than 55 marks in each theoretical paper of Physics and Chemistry and more than 60 marks in each Bengali and English papers. She expected 90% marks in Physics and Chemistry Practical. Since the expectations of the petitioner and the facts depicted in the mark sheet were so different, she felt that the theory papers of the petitioner were not properly assessed by the examiners and actual marks were not awarded after examining each answer written in the answer scripts. The petitioner obtained 118 marks in Mathematics and 160 marks in Computer Science. Those were according to her expectation. Though she passed Higher Secondary Examination in first division securing 621 out of 1000 marks, she was aggrieved in relation to the marks awarded to her in Bengali, English, Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner, thus, filed the writ petition. When the writ petition was being moved it was submitted that the petitioner has applied for Post Publication Scrutiny of her result. In that view of the matter, I directed the result of the Post Publication Scrutiny be produced in Court in a sealed cover. That was done. When the Post Publication Scrutiny result was scrutinized, it transpired that though in the mark sheet the petitioner has been shown to have received 28 marks in Chemistry first paper and 35 marks in the Chemistry second paper in the report it has been shown that as if the petitioner has obtained 24 marks in the Chemistry first paper and 32 marks in the Chemistry second paper. Then again, in the mark sheet it has been shown that the petitioner has obtained 26 marks in Physics first paper and 29 marks in Physics second paper but, in the report it had been shown that the petitioner obtained 22 marks in Physics first paper and 26 marks in Physics second paper. It was also reported in the result of the Post Publication Scrutiny that there has been no alteration. Inasmuch as the figures as depicted in the report did not tally with the figures depicted in the mark sheet, as mentioned above, it was clear that while preparing the report, the mark sheet of the petitioner had not been consulted and accordingly it was apprehended that the report was incorrect. The Council was, thus, directed to produce both the Chemistry papers and the Physics papers of the petitioner with a further direction to submit a fresh report stating why an incorrect report had been submitted to Court. Subsequent thereto a detailed report was filed and with that the Chemistry and Physics papers of the petitioner were produced in Court. By looking at those answer scripts it appeared that the petitioner was awarded 22 marks in Physics first paper and 26 marks in Physics second paper. It also appeared from the answer scripts that the petitioner was awarded 24 marks in Chemistry first paper and 32 marks in Chemistry second paper. It also appeared that those marks were awarded after Head Examiner awarded some more marks to the petitioner in Physics and Chemistry first papers. An opportunity was given to the petitioner and to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to look into those papers for the purpose of pointing out whether any question correctly answered has been taken - as incorrect. Despite looking into the answer scripts no such submission was made. 16. In the report it was stated that the petitioner has been shown to have received in Physics first and second papers and Chemistry first and second papers respectively 26,29,28 and 35 for certain marks were added to the marks -obtained by the petitioner on the basis of the direction given by the President of the Council in terms of the relevant rules limited to 14 marks but divided in four papers. In the report it has been stated that the Examiner originally awarded less marks to the petitioner in Chemistry first paper as well as in Physics first paper. The Head Examiner is within his power to do re-checking and re-examination of upto 5% of the answer scripts as per Council's Regulations. The Head Examiner re-checked and re-examined both the Chemistry papers as well as both the Physics papers of the petitioner and enhanced to some extent the marks awarded by the Examiner in the Chemistry first paper and in the Physics first paper. The Head Examiner did not enhance marks in Chemistry second paper or in Physics second paper. In the answer scripts, thus, the petitioner received 22 marks in Physics first paper, 26 marks in Physics second paper, 24 marks in Chemistry first paper and 32 marks in Chemistry second paper. It was then reported in the report that a policy decision was taken by the President of the Council to give an additional 14 marks to all candidates appearing in the Higher Secondary Examination-2002, who came out successful and also who would come out successful by the advantage of those 14 marks, under the President's award, in exercise of his power under Regulation 9(xiv)(c) of the Examination Regulations, 1999 for the interest of students' community as a whole. It was stated that since the petitioner was otherwise successful, she was awarded these 14 marks. Those 14 marks were divided into Physics first paper, Physics second paper, Chemistry first paper and Chemistry second paper. Accordingly the petitioner was shown to have received 26 marks instead of 22 marks in Physics first paper, 29 marks instead of 26 marks in Physics second paper, 28 marks instead of 24 marks in Chemistry first paper and 35 marks instead of 32 marks in Chemistry second paper in the mark sheet. It has been stated in the report that the President ofthe Council decided to award these 14 marks because of low percentage of successful candidates but subject to their fulfilling the following criteria: (a) Only those candidates who have passed or will pass the examination upon being awarded the award marks, were given the benefit thereof, which marks, however, were split in two subjects in which they have secured lowest marks. (b) The total marks do not exceed 799. (b) The total marks do not exceed 799. (c) In case of candidates securing between 786 and 799 in the aggregate, they were awarded only as many award marks so that their aggregate does not exceed 800. 17. It has been reported that this practice has been followed in the earlier years also. It has been reported that this award marks are granted by giving appropriate instructions to the Tabulators who include the same in the T.R. and the mark sheets but the same do not reflect in the answer scripts and accordingly when the Post Publication Scrutiny is made, those are not reflected, but, the same will be reflected in the finally published computer generated Post Publication Scrutiny result, which will be gazetted and communicated to all institutions by the Council after the entire Post Publication Scrutiny process is complete for onward transmission to the candidates. It has been stated in the report that issue of award marks is highly confidential and is handled by the Deputy Secretary (Confidential). The report thus concluded that there was actually no error or mistake in the Post Publication Scrutiny Statement of the petitioner, which was submitted in Court earlier. It was stated that in order to remove the doubt, the report has tried to explain the matter. 18. Clause 9(xiv)(c) of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (Examination) Regulation, 1999 made by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education in exercise of power conferred to it by sub-section (3), read with clauses (g), (h), (D, (j) and (k) of sub- section (2) of section 21 of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Act, 1975 with the approval of the Governor under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act is as follows: "9(xiv)(c). The results of the final examination shall be published in such form, and through such mode, as may be determined by the Council from time to time. If the percentage of failure in an examination appears to be abnormal owing to unforeseen reasons, the President, may take such steps as may be deemed necessary before finalizing the results for publication". 19. The clause makes it abundantly clear that the power granted thereby to the President can only be exercised if the percentage of failure ill an examination appears to be abnormal owing to some unforeseen reason. 19. The clause makes it abundantly clear that the power granted thereby to the President can only be exercised if the percentage of failure ill an examination appears to be abnormal owing to some unforeseen reason. That the percentage of failure in the Higher Secondary Examination-2002 appeared to be abnormal has not been stated anywhere in the report, though it has been stated that there was low percentage of successful candidates. Abnormal cannot be equated with low. Mere abnormal failure in the said examination could also not entitle the President to exercise the power under the said clause. In order to exercise such power it was necessary to ascribe that the abnormal failure was due to some unforeseen reason. What were those unforeseen reasons, if any, have not been mentioned in the report. It was thought that since in the previous years such power had been used, the same could also be used during this year. Furthermore, the power was to improve upon the abnormal failure and not to award marks to successful candidates, which they have not obtained by their merit. I quiet appreciate that if there be abnormal situation in the State, like say war, immediately before the Higher Secondary Examination, which can perceive to have affected the students community at large and the immediate effect thereof is reflected by abnormal failures, some measures are taken to award mark to those who have failed but I do not appreciate that when there is no such calamity by the grace of the President a student, who is not competent to be successful, would be declared to be successful, In addition to that there is no justification or just reason to award any mark to a student who has not earned the same. Even the clause in question does not permit the President to do so. It is surprising that the Council; which has made the Rule, has acted in a manner totally inconsistent therewith. Furthermore, it has been highlighted in the report that issue of award mark is highly confidential and is handled by the Deputy Secretary (Confidential). The question is, why the same should at all be confidential? If a situation does arise for exercise of such power, the Council must have the fairness to come out openly and to inform the people accordingly. The question is, why the same should at all be confidential? If a situation does arise for exercise of such power, the Council must have the fairness to come out openly and to inform the people accordingly. The Council has not been established to increase the quantity of so-called literates but to impart quality education. There is no shame in admitting at the education system prevalent is incapable of delivering quality education. If one is bold enough as is expected of the Council to say so, then it can take remedial steps. It would be highly inappropriate on the part of the Council to increase the number of qualifiers by giving concealed marks to which they are not otherwise entitled to and thereby give a totally distorted picture of the system of education prevalent in the State. It is to be kept in mind that everyone wants to pass an examination of this nature but it is an obligation of the Council to tell that they must deserve to pass the same. The Council, by giving these extra marks, has instilled in undeserving students that they are deserving students and thereby has made unjust representation not only to those who are beneficiaries of those unjustified marks, but also to their parents and guardians, who have been falsely made to believe that their wards are worth when they are not. 20. W.P. No.10600 is, thus, disposed of by directing the President of the Council not to award any such mark in future unless the conditions of the clause is satisfied and to intimate the people at large by a proper notification that such marks would be awarded for the reason calls for awarding such marks with the parameter of awarding such marks as may be decided and not otherwise. 21. Master Firoz Hossain is the minor son of the petitioner in W.P. No.11645 (W) of 2002. Master Hossain appeared in Madhyamik Examination, 2002 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. When the result of the said Examination came out it transpired that he has scored good marks in all subjects except in Geography. Though he passed with first division securing 526 out of 800 marks aggregating to roughly 66% marks, he obtained only 26 marks in Geography. When the result of the said Examination came out it transpired that he has scored good marks in all subjects except in Geography. Though he passed with first division securing 526 out of 800 marks aggregating to roughly 66% marks, he obtained only 26 marks in Geography. The mark sheet depicted that Master Hossain has obtained 16 out of90 marks in Geography written test but 10 out of 10 marks in Geography oral test. Neither Master Hossain, nor his father could expect this, for even in the test examination conducted by the school Master Hossain got 68 out of 90 marks in Geography. Master Hossain expected at least 60% marks in Geography and accordingly was shocked and surprised when it transpired that he has been awarded only 26 marks in Geography. The petitioner then wrote a letter to the President of the Board with a request to him to look into the matter and to do the needful so that Geography paper of Master Hossain is properly examined and scrutinized and proper and actual marks are given to him. The petitioner did not receive any response and hence filed the writ petition, principally contending that it is absurd that Master Hossain has obtained such less marks in Geography. It was contended that by reason of mistake committed by the Board Master Hossain has been shown to have received less marks than what he has actually obtained. 22. When the writ petition was moved by looking at the mark sheet it appeared that Master Hossain studied hard and accordingly had been awarded appropriate marks for the efforts made by him while appearing at the said Examination. It also appeared that Master Hossain got very good marks in all subjects except in Geography. The supporting parents of Master Hossain, who had watched him prepare for the Examination, were all throughout with him and with conviction felt what their son was saying was correct. They supported their minor son not only by making representation to the President of the Board but also by filing the present writ petition. It also appeared that after the writ petition was filed the Board woke up, looked into the answer scripts of Master Hossain in Geography and found that he got 65 marks and not 16 out of 90 marks in Geography written Examination. It also appeared that after the writ petition was filed the Board woke up, looked into the answer scripts of Master Hossain in Geography and found that he got 65 marks and not 16 out of 90 marks in Geography written Examination. Realizing the mistake the Board corrected its mistake and supplied to Master Hossain the correct mark sheet after he surrendered the incorrect mark sheet. But, for the support given to the young child by his parents in the manner indicated above, Master Hossain would have lost his confidence in the system, for despite giving all that effort he was shown to have secured such a poor mark. It was felt that matters of this nature come to Court very seldom and accordingly it is not known whether there are one or two solitary or insignificant mistakes or these mistakes are happening rampant and whether the parents are not standing by their children. It was felt that because a small child exists, the education system exists. It was also felt that if the education system, as laid, cannot support for which it exists, there is no necessity of existence of such a system. The Court, thus, had to observe that in a democracy who-ever holds a public post is obliged and duty bound not only to be transparent but also to accept his mistakes and upon an opportunity being given to him to rectify the same and to look into the cause of such mistakes so that by repetition of such mistake no other person suffers. As it transpired that by reason of a sheer mistake for which Master Hossain was shown to have obtained something which he did not obtain, it became obligatory upon the Board to find out the reason of such mistake and to take remedial measures so that in future such mistakes do not happen and accordingly the confidence of a young child in building his career is not shattered. Thus, despite Master Hossain having had got full relief to which he was entitled to in the writ petition, but, having regard to the fact that he had approached a Judicial Review Court, it was felt that the Court became obliged to find out whether the public servants entrusted to discharge public duties towards the public have discharged their duties in the manner they were required to discharge the same and accordingly a direction was given upon the Board to file a report disclosing the reason for the mistake, when and how the same was detected and what remedial steps the Board has taken to ensure that similar mistakes would not occur in future. In terms thereof a report has been filed. The same is as follows: "1. The Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination) 2002 (Written Examination) commenced on and from 25th February, 2002 and the said examination ended on 7th March, 2002. 2. For evaluation of all the answer scripts, the Board appointed 522 Head Examiners and also appointed 24 Head Examiners for spot evaluation in connection with the Madhyamik Pariksha, 2002. The Board also appointed 24,800 Examiners under the different Head Examiners for examining the answer scripts. 3. The Examiners after examining the answer scripts submitted the list of marks obtained by the examinees to the concerned Head Examiner and on receiving Marks Foil from the Examiner, the Head Examiner arranged for scrutinizing the same by the Scrutinizer. Thereafter, the concerned Head Examiner submitted the Marks Foil to the Board for preparation of the Result. Thereafter, the Mark Sheet was prepared through the different Computer Agencies. 4. After preparation of the Mark Sheets result was published. After publication of the results according to the Rules, there is a provision for Post Publication Scrutiny as well as Post Publication Review of answer scripts by any dissatisfied student who may apply for PPS and/ or PPR through the school and this system was introduced for rectification of the mistake, if there be any, including fresh assessment of answer scripts (in case failed candidates) and adding the marks, if eligible. 5. Through this system every year more or less ten per cent of total examinees normally apply for PPS and PPR and after proper scrutiny a very negligible number were affected in cases of PPS and PPR. 6. 5. Through this system every year more or less ten per cent of total examinees normally apply for PPS and PPR and after proper scrutiny a very negligible number were affected in cases of PPS and PPR. 6. In the present year total 34,765 candidates applied for PPS and PPR out of 5,75,964 students in the Madhyamik Examination, that is, about 6 to 7% out of the total students, applied for PPS and PPR. But in the last year 64,586 students applied for PPS and PPR out of 5,64,775 students in Madhyamik Pariksha held in 2001. It is apparent that about 10% of the total students applied for PPS and PPR, which shows that the percentage has been reduced in comparison with the students applied for PPR and PPS in the last year. 7. In this year in a very few cases there is a mistake either on the part of Examiner/Head Examiner/Scrutinizer concerned or caused by the computer agencies entrusted with the preparation of mark sheet. 8. After the publication of the result of M.P.(S.E.) Examination, 2002, number of candidates as mentioned above applied for PPS and PPR and there is a change in marks in some cases as usual like previous years. But only in two cases there is a prominent change of marks in the answer scripts differing with the published mark sheet due to mistake either on the part of Examiner or on the part of the Scrutinizer including mistake on the part of the computer agency. For the mistake necessary correction was made at once and the fresh mark sheet was issued in favour of the candidates. This thing actually happened in the present case. This was highlighted by the Media in such a fashion that an impression was created amongst the general public to the effect that large number of such mistakes definitely had taken place. The students in large numbers approach the Court for revision of the marks in expectation that the marks would be increased like the case mentioned above. Board also had been approached by a large number of guardians and students with a demand for review of the answer scripts. 9. The students in large numbers approach the Court for revision of the marks in expectation that the marks would be increased like the case mentioned above. Board also had been approached by a large number of guardians and students with a demand for review of the answer scripts. 9. In the present year the Board re-examined the answer scripts not only for the candidates who applied for PPS and PPR but also for the persons who filed representations before the Board and steps have already been taken where it is necessary .Beside that the Board also has rectified the mistakes for those candidates who obtained the order from the Hon'ble Court. 10. For the forth-coming examination, which will be held in March, 2002 I assure the Hon'ble Court that in future to avoid such incidents which occurred, Board is seriously considering the entire examination process with free and fresh mind and will take appropriate steps so that no such incidents occur in future. However, we are aware of the mistakes committed by the Board even if it is negligible. Since Board has the responsibility of issuing correct mark sheet after proper evaluation, Board regrets for the said lapses." 23. The report suggests that the Board has found the areas where mistakes have occurred. The report also suggests that steps have been taken even without intervention of the Court to rectify mistakes. The report also promises that in future steps would be taken so that these mistakes would not occur. However, the report does not disclose the reason for the mistake, when and how the same was detected and what remedial steps the Board has taken to ensure that similar mistakes would not occur in future. Be that as it may, when the highest public officer of the Board has assured the highest Court of this State that the Board is seriously considering the entire examination process with free and fresh mind and will take appropriate steps so that no such incident occur in future, there is hardly anything further to be done by this Court in the matter. The object and purpose of this exercise was to require the Board to make an introspection so that by reason of a mistake committed by it or by one of its officers, the qualitative merit of a student is not diminished and accordingly the confidence in the system is not shattered. The object and purpose of this exercise was to require the Board to make an introspection so that by reason of a mistake committed by it or by one of its officers, the qualitative merit of a student is not diminished and accordingly the confidence in the system is not shattered. From the report it appears that at present Post Publication Scrutiny and Post Publication Review of answer scripts are available. The report makes it further clear that fresh assessment of answer scripts is available only in case of failed candidates. I quiet appreciate that it is not possible to assess afresh all the answer scripts. It has been reported that nearly 5,76,000 students had appeared in the Examination in question. Each of them appeared in nine written tests. Therefore, there were over 60 lacs answer scripts. Those have been examined once. That itself is a herculian task. It would, therefore, be not physically possible to have all those answer scripts re-examined, which appears to be the demand of the parents of the students, who appeared in such examination. However, as aforesaid, if the Board prepares the model answers and distributes the same to the examiners indicating what answers would fetch fractional and full marks, even if the examiners are 25,000 in number and even though all of them come from different walks of life with different educational background and different experience in life, it is possible that a good student, and not a failed student, may not be awarded less marks than to what he is otherwise entitled to, which in turn may not affect his career. I think the Board must device some other measures also to redress the same. The institution through which a student appears in such examinations should be deemed to be aware as to what the student is expected to get. If the student gets a totally dis-similar mark than what he is expected to get in a particular subject, I think the institution with all responsibility should be permitted to apply for fresh assessment of the concerned answer script of the student in question. If such a measure is taken, confidence of the pupil in the system will be more strengthened. 24. If such a measure is taken, confidence of the pupil in the system will be more strengthened. 24. I have .used the expression "with responsibility", for in this year itself the President and the Teacher-in-Charge of a School had filed a writ petition, which has already been dealt with, wherein it was contended that it is impossible that all the students of the institution have obtained very low marks in Geography. 69 answer scripts were, thus, called for. Those were scrutinized by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the said writ petition with the assistance of the teacher-in-charge of the said institution as well as the students but it could not be pointed out that for any correct answer any examinee obtained any dis-proportionate mark. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without any direction. It is not known whose money was spent to fight that litigation. Was that of the institution? If that was of the institution, that has been wasted for no just reason. There is, however, no-one accountable for such a wastage. One thing, however, became crystal clear that the Geography teaching mechanism available at the institution was below standard and accordingly the students were not properly taught to secure reasonable good marks. Despite there being no proper mechanism to teach Geography, the institution held out to the students and their parents and guardians that their wards have been properly taught Geography. The present system does not make the institution accountable for those unjust representation. 25. Most of the institutions preparing students for Madhyamik Examination are Aided Institutions. The Government has appropriately devised that such an institution run with the aid of the State shall have a democratic set up. It has provided that the Management of such an institution would vest in the elected representatives of the guardians of the students, elected representatives of the teaching and non-teaching staff and nominees of the Government as well as of the Local Authorities. No better system can be thought of. The guardians of the students and the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution as well as the nominee of the Local Authorities like the nominee of the Government would only do their best for the betterment of the institution so that the students studying at the institution get the best. However, none of these members of the management has any accountability. However, none of these members of the management has any accountability. Similar is "the case of the teachers. They also do not have any accountability at all. Despite failing to give proper and appropriate education, they are assured of not only very lucrative monthly salary but also appropriate retrial benefits comparable to public servants. The teachers would not perform in the classroom of the institution to force upon the students to take private tuition. But, there would be no-one to question their efficiency. I do not think that this can go on indefinitely. The State, the Board, the Council and the University must, therefore, take appropriate steps not only to make the members of the Managing Committee of the Institution imparting Secondary, Higher Secondary and College studies accountable but also to make the Teachers, Lecturers and Professors not only accountable but also responsible and should devise appropriate steps in that regard. W. P. 11645 (W) of 2002 is, thus, disposed of. 26. In this connection it would not be out of place to mention that last year I had an occasion to deal with a matter where a large number of students of an Institution filed a writ petition challenging the marks awarded to them in English in Higher Secondary Examination-200l. The papers were brought in Court and it was found that the students were awarded marks commensurate with the merit of their answers. I felt that there was an utter failure on the part of the Institution in teaching English to the students in question and accordingly directed the Council to take appropriate measures. This year although I had dealt with a large number of result dispute cases, no case from that Institution came before me particularly in relation to English. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Council submitted that after the order was passed last year, the Council took appropriate steps and gave appropriate directions to the Institution and since the Institution remedied its short-comings, this year there was no such mass grievances of the students in relation to English. This gives me confidence that if appropriate vigil is kept upon the institutions and they are instilled with their responsibility, there is likelihood of improvement of qualitative education in the State. 27. This gives me confidence that if appropriate vigil is kept upon the institutions and they are instilled with their responsibility, there is likelihood of improvement of qualitative education in the State. 27. Smt. Rama Bhattacharyya, the petitioner in W.P. 11431 (W) of 2002, was a student of Bhatpara Central Hindu Girls' High School at Barrackpore, which is recognised to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. She appeared in the Madhyamik Examination 2000 and obtained 700 out of 800 marks in the said Examination and accordingly passed the same in First Division with Star. She then got herself admitted in Barrackpore Girls' High School, Talpukur, Barrackpore for the purpose of preparing herself to appear at the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. She appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination 2002 conducted by the said Council. When the result was published it appeared that she has secured 729 out of 1000 marks in the said Examination and accordingly has passed the same in first division. From the mark sheet issued to her she found that she has obtained 31 out of 80 marks in the Physics first paper and 33 out of 80 marks in the Physics second paper, while she got 39 out of 40 marks in the Physics Practical Examination. She expected that she would get a minimum of80% marks in Physics. She thought that the marks awarded to her in Physics written examination are incorrect. The petitioner, thus, made a representation to the Council and also applied for Post Publication Scrutiny. She wanted to pursue further study in Physics but for the marks she obtained, she cannot pursue the same. She did not get any response either to her representation or to the application made for Post Publication Scrutiny and accordingly filed the present writ petition. In view of the assertions made, the answer scripts of the petitioner in Physics first paper as well as Physics second paper were produced in Court. From that it appears that the petitioner was assessed to be entitled to 31 marks in Physics first paper and 33 marks in Physics second paper. The petitioner obtained lowest marks in Physics first paper and Physics second paper. Despite that and despite the decision of the President of the Council to grant award marks, it is surprising that the petitioner has not been granted any such award mark. The petitioner obtained lowest marks in Physics first paper and Physics second paper. Despite that and despite the decision of the President of the Council to grant award marks, it is surprising that the petitioner has not been granted any such award mark. The petitioner should have been awarded at least 7 marks in Physics according to the said decision of the President of the Council but she has not been awarded any such marks. Why, has not been answered by the Council. This demonstrates that in the matter of awarding award marks uniform practice has not been followed, which has been clamored in the report mentioned above. This is one of the reasons for which secret awarding of award marks should be done away with forthwith. In the event a decision is taken to grant award marks, the same should be made public and should be shown separately in the mark sheet in order to generate public confidence and to whittle down the scope of making discrimination. 28. Be that as it may, when the petitioner was shown her answer scripts, she felt that for no just reason she has been awarded less marks than to what she was entitled to and in order to substantiate that there is some truth and substance in such feeling, she has produced the model answers backed up by the text book. Question 9(a) of the Physics first paper carried 2+2 marks, the question was, "What do you mean by coefficients of real and apparent expansions of a liquid? Deduce the relation between them." She has been awarded 4 marks for the answers given to the said question. Question No.9(b) again carried 2+2 marks. The question was "State Charles' law regarding the expansion of a gas. How can be concept of absolute zero of temperature be obtained from the law?" In the model answer prepared by the petitioner she has written exactly what she had written in the answer script. She was, however, awarded for the first part of the answer 1 out of 2 and for the second part 11/2 out of 2. The answer given by her appears to be backed up by the textbook relied by her. Question No. 9(c) carried 1+3 marks. The question was "What is universal gas constant? She was, however, awarded for the first part of the answer 1 out of 2 and for the second part 11/2 out of 2. The answer given by her appears to be backed up by the textbook relied by her. Question No. 9(c) carried 1+3 marks. The question was "What is universal gas constant? A vessel contains some amount of air at 30°C. To what temperature must it be heated so that one-third of the air is driven out? (yp = 1/273/oC)". The petitioner got no marks. The model answer prepared by her, which is backed up by the textbook do not tally with the answer given by her in the .answer script. However, for question 10(a), which carried 3 marks, the petitioner was awarded one mark. The answer given by her in the answer script is exactly same to the answer prepared by her in the model answer, which is backed up by the text book. The petitioner was not given any mark in question 10(b) which carried 2 marks but similarly the answer given by her in the model answer is exactly the same what she had written in the answer script. It is not necessary at this stage to consider each and every question and answer given by the petitioner. It is possible that the answer scripts of the petitioner have been correctly assessed. It is also possible that it has not been done so. If the model answers, as suggested above, had been prepared it could be ascertained whether the answers given by the petitioner are those, which the Council wanted. The petitioner could ascertain the standard of answers that the Council was expecting. In the absence thereof the petitioner may be apprehensive that the examiners, who examined the Physics answer scripts of the petitioner were unjustly harsh to the petitioner for she is confident that despite correctly writing the answers, as had been studied by her from the suggested text books, she has not been able to score marks to her expectation. It must always be kept in mind that these Examinations are conducted for the purpose of finding out the qualitative knowledge the students have acquired during the course of study. In order to properly appreciate the same the standard should not only be fixed, but the students must also be made aware that they are expected to achieve such standard. It must always be kept in mind that these Examinations are conducted for the purpose of finding out the qualitative knowledge the students have acquired during the course of study. In order to properly appreciate the same the standard should not only be fixed, but the students must also be made aware that they are expected to achieve such standard. This can only be done provided model answers are prepared and circulated in the manner indicated above. This would also bring in not only transparency but will also instill confidence in the students and their parents and at the same time make the assessment mechanism rational and accountable. 29. Be that as it may, from the answer scripts produced it does not appear that the Head Examiner had an occasion to go through the assessment made by the examiner of the answers given by the petitioner in any of the papers in Physics. Although the Physics second paper of the petitioner has been signed by the Head Examiner but the Physics first paper has not even been signed by the Head Examiner. As has been reported by the Council the Head Examiner has a right of re-examining 5% of the answer scripts, but, unfortunately the petitioner did not fall within those 5% of the students whose answer scripts had been re-examined by the Head Examiner. The marks obtained by the petitioner demonstrate that she is otherwise a good student. That the petitioner is a good student must be known to the Institution from where the petitioner appeared at the said Examination. By looking at the marks obtained by the petitioner, the Institution may form an opinio~ as to whether there is a possibility that the petitioner has been a victim of circumstances or not. If it is of such view, despite having such view it can do nothing to save the situation in the present system, as at present there is no scope of re-examining the answer scripts of the petitioner. In order to instill confidence in the students if the Institution is empowered to make representation in selected cases with responsibility as aforesaid for re-examination of the answer scripts of a student like the petitioner is, that, I think, would not be out of place for the same would take away the fear of good students that they may became victim of circumstances. In order to instill confidence in the petitioner and particularly for the reason as has appeared to me that despite writing correct answers, she did not get proper marks, while disposing of W.P.11431 (W) of 2002, I direct the Council to place the answer scripts of the petitioner before the Head Examiner for re-examining the Physics first and second papers of the petitioner and thereupon to do the needful as quickly as possible but not later than one month from today. It goes without saying that the Council shall find out whether award marks have been given to the petitioner and if not, it must give the same to the petitioner and supply to the petitioner correct mark sheet within the time mentioned above. 30. Smt. Anwesha Mukherjee, the petitioner in W.P. 10701 (W) of 2002, appeared in Higher Secondary Examination-2002. When the mark sheet was issued it transpired that she has been awarded only 6 out of 100 marks in Bengali second paper. At the Test Examination conducted by the Institution from where she appeared at the said Examination, she obtained 52% marks in Bengali. In the Higher Secondary Examination she was awarded 54 out of 100 marks in the Bengali first paper. By reason thereof she obtained 60 out of 200 marks in Bengali and passed in Bengali. Having regard to the fact that she obtained fairly good marks in other subjects, she passed the said Examination in second division upon securing 500 out of 1000 marks. She could not believe that she could get 6 out of 100 marks in Bengali second paper. She thus approached this Court. The Court directed production of the answer script of the petitioner in Bengali second paper. In terms there of the said answer script was produced. From the answer script it appeared that in order to assess the merit of the answers given therein, the Council had appointed an examiner who examined the said answer script of the petitioner and gave marks commensurate with the merit of the answers given by the petitioner. It also appeared that later on the answer script was scrutinized by a scrutinizer appointed by the Council and the Head Examiner also had an occasion to verify whether proper assessment has been made by the examiner of the answers given by the petitioner. It also appeared that later on the answer script was scrutinized by a scrutinizer appointed by the Council and the Head Examiner also had an occasion to verify whether proper assessment has been made by the examiner of the answers given by the petitioner. It also appeared that on the assessment made by the examiner and the Head Examiner and upon scrutinizing the assessment, the petitioner was declared to have obtained 42 marks out of 100 in the Bengali second paper but in the mark sheet she was shown to have obtained only 6 marks. It, therefore, appeared that there was no dearth of honesty in the matter of taking proper steps to assess the answers given by the petitioner, but, somewhere something went wrong and accordingly the mark sheet issued to the petitioner did not reflect correct marks obtained by her. I thus, felt that the Council must look into this aspect of the matter and try to pin point as to where the mistake occurred and thereupon it should be a report to this Court for its satisfaction and accordingly I gave a direction to that effect with a further direction that in the meantime the Council should issue the correct mark sheet to the petitioner upon the petitioner surrendering to the Council the incorrect mark sheet. Before the report is dealt with it is my duty to point out that in Bengali the petitioner got the second lowest mark after Political Science and accordingly, she should have been awarded award marks in terms of the Presidential decision in Bengali. This has not been done. No reason is forthcoming why this has not been done. 31. The report submitted by the Council is as follows: "In compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Justice Mr. Barin Ghosh dated 04.09.2002, I have made enquiry as to how and why the mark sheet issued to the petitioner did not reflect correct mark obtained by her in the Higher Secondary Examination 2002. On such enquiry, I have found that the candidate was shown to have secured 6 marks in Bengali Paper-II in the Mark sheet issued to her, although in her answer script, she was shown to have secured 42 marks in the said paper. On such enquiry, I have found that the candidate was shown to have secured 6 marks in Bengali Paper-II in the Mark sheet issued to her, although in her answer script, she was shown to have secured 42 marks in the said paper. It is necessary to mention that, in general, four sets of marks foils are prepared by an Examiner wherein marks of candidates examined are recorded from the answer scripts by the examiner himself and the mark foils contain signatures of Examiner, Scrutinizer and Head Examiner after proper scrutiny. In this case, the concerned Head Examiner has. submitted mark foil which indicates that the candidate secured 42 marks in the said paper, but the computer (Tab-II) erroneously printed 6(six) in Bengali Paper-II on the mark sheet of the said candidate with no valid ground and this mistake has been due to non-compliance of the norms framed for the purpose by the Council. The blame, therefore, squarely is that of the data processor of the said computer (Tab-II) and accordingly, the concerned computer agency has been apprised of the serious mistake committed at their end and step has been taken to terminate their contract. Needless to state that fresh mark sheet was issued to the candidate on 12.09.2002, in cancellation of her previous mark sheet incompliance with the direction of Hon'ble High Court. In another case (Basarul Sha), the candidate actually secured 47 marks in Bengali Paper-I and this was reflected on his answer script. In the mark sheet, he was, however, shown to have secured "0" in the said paper. Enquiry revealed that in this case, the examiner concerned while recording the marks of the candidate in the mark foils, made mistake and in place of 47 marks, he entered 47 marks in the part of mark foil meant for Computer (Tab-I) and failed to enter any mark and left the column of Computer (TabII) and Council copy blank. The most unfortunate part of this case was that both the scrutinizer and Head Examiner have signed the marks foil but they did not rectify the mistake committed by the examiner. When the said mark foil was sent to the Computers (Tab-I and Tab-II) for data entry, the Computer (Tab-I) made correct entry but the Computer (Tab-II) kept the field blank as there was no mark in their mark foil for the said field. When the said mark foil was sent to the Computers (Tab-I and Tab-II) for data entry, the Computer (Tab-I) made correct entry but the Computer (Tab-II) kept the field blank as there was no mark in their mark foil for the said field. The mismatch was referred to the Council for verification and the dealing assistant entrusted with this job recorded 00' (zero) in the respective column meant for Basarul Sha due to inadvertence. The Computer (Tab-I) entrusted with the job to print mark sheet, printed 00' in Bengali paper -I in the mark sheet of the petitioner on information from the Council regarding correctness of this change. Upon the above mistake being detected by the Council, a fresh mark sheet was issued to the candidate upon his surrendering the original mark sheet containing incorrect marks. As a measure of punishment, the Council has decided not to entrust any work with the concerned Examiner, Head Examiner and Scrutinizer for H.S. Examination in future and also requested their respective employers to take appropriate punitive measures within the framework of rules. The Council also intends to censure the concerned employee for the inadvertent error on his part. The Council, in addition, proposes to introduce some measures of checks and balances to prevent recurrence of similar mistakes in the process of publication of results in future. The Council intends to check all these cases in future where there may be large difference in marks in two papers of the same subject of a candidate. The papers where he or she obtained the lower mark in comparison to the other paper will also be subjected to further verification from available documents, if necessary." 32. The report makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was a victim of human error. The error was gross in nature. Supportive parents of the petitioner stood by her and accordingly she approached this Court through whose intervention the gross mistake could be detected. It is true that the Council has taken measures to terminate the contract given to the Computer Agency for its employees committed a gross unjustified mistake. The report also shows that in yet another case the Examiner, the Head Examiner and the Scrutinizer, all three, committed gross mistake. It is true that the Council has taken measures to terminate the contract given to the Computer Agency for its employees committed a gross unjustified mistake. The report also shows that in yet another case the Examiner, the Head Examiner and the Scrutinizer, all three, committed gross mistake. The Council has proposed not to entrust any further job of assessing answer scripts to the concerned Examiner, Head Examiner and the Scrutinizer and has asked the respective employers to take punitive measures within the framework of rules, but, the question is, what punitive measures are available within the framework of rules. There appears to be none. Assessment of answer scripts as well as scrutinizing the same are laborious work no doubt. These are also not so remunerative. If for committing these mistakes the Examiner, Head Examiner and the Scrutinizer are relieved of the onerous burden of assessing and scrutinizing answer scripts without any other penalty, that would entail other examiners, Head Examiners and Scrutinizers to commit similar such mistakes deliberately in order to avoid onerous duty of assessing and scrutinizing answer scripts in future. This appears to be inappropriate. I think the State must come out with appropriate laws for the purpose of making these examiners and head examiners and scrutinizers accountable for these gross mistakes. Similarly, mere termination of a contract granted to an outside agency without anything more will also not make them responsible for the public duty entrusted upon them and accordingly appropriate measures must be taken so that by mere termination of contract of those erring agencies do not get scot free. The terms of the contract entered with the computer agency are not known. It is possible to include appropriate clause in such contract it self to make them properly responsible. The Council should, therefore, look into the matter and take appropriate remedial measures. W.P. No.10701 (W) of 2002 is, thus, disposed of with a direction upon the Council to ascertain whether award marks have been given to the petitioner and if not to give the same and replace the mark sheet within one month from date. 33. Smt. Chandrama Dey, the petitioner in W.P. No. 13992(W) of 2002, passed Madhyamik Examination 1997 in first division with star securing 631 out of 800 marks. She passed Higher. Secondary Examination 1999 in first division upon securing 706 out of 1000 marks. She passed B.Sc. 33. Smt. Chandrama Dey, the petitioner in W.P. No. 13992(W) of 2002, passed Madhyamik Examination 1997 in first division with star securing 631 out of 800 marks. She passed Higher. Secondary Examination 1999 in first division upon securing 706 out of 1000 marks. She passed B.Sc. Part-I (Three Years Geography Honours) Examination 2001 upon securing 255 out of 400 marks. She appeared in B.Sc. Part-II (Three Years Geography Honours) Examination 2002 conducted by the University of Calcutta. When the mark sheet of Part-II Examination was received by her, she found that she has obtained 65 out of 100 in paper V, 66 out of 100 in paper VI, 76 out of 100 in paper VII and 42 out of 100 in paper VIII (practical). She could not believe that she could get only 42 marks out of 100 in practical Examination. She wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University stating that she is confident that she should get at least 80 marks in practical whereas she has been awarded only 42 marks and accordingly requested the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University to look into the matter. Nothing was done and hence she approached this Court by filing the writ petition. When the writ petition was moved upon notice to the Calcutta University it was submitted that before receipt of the copy of the writ petition the University looked into the matter when it transpired that a few of the students have not been shown t9 have received marks in the mark sheets issued in their favour, which they have in fact obtained and the petitioner is one of those students. It was also submitted that the University, thus, took a decision to rectify the mistake and to issue appropriate mark sheet to the petitioner upon the petitioner surrendering the incorrect mark sheet. It was also submitted that if by reason of such mistake the petitioner has lost any honour, the same shall also be restored to her. This submission was made for it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the event the petitioner is given the correct marks actually obtained by her, she should be declared to have stood first in the B.Sc. (Three Years Geography Honours) Examination. This submission was made for it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the event the petitioner is given the correct marks actually obtained by her, she should be declared to have stood first in the B.Sc. (Three Years Geography Honours) Examination. When such submission was made, having regard to the fact that human being is prone to commit mistakes with a responsibility to detect and rectify the same and having regard to the fact that such mistake has been independently detected and steps have been taken to rectify the same, the matter must rest there, but, having regard to the fact that similar mistakes have been committed by other agencies conducting educational matters and such agencies have already submitted reports in relation thereto, the Court also called upon the University to file a report. In terms thereof a report has been filed. The contents thereof are as follows: "1. The results of the B.Sc. Part-II (Three Year Honours) Examination, 2002 conducted by the University of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the University) were published on 19.7.02 and soon thereafter the mark sheets were delivered to the respective colleges. 2. On 29.7.02 I received a letter from the concerned Head Examiner of Geography (Honours) that it had come to her notice recently that there was an error in calculating marks obtained by a particular examinee, roll number whereof was mentioned therein. 3. Upon receipt of the said letter, I placed the same before the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Academic) of the University with my observations on 31.7.02. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) endorsed the said note to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for his kind perusal and necessary action. The Vice Chancellor directed by order dated 1.8.02 to discuss the matter with the concerned Head Examiner. 4. By a further letter dated 21.8.02 to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the concerned Head Examiner reported again that 'on careful scrutiny in the marks of Paper-VIII of B.A./B.Sc. Part-II Examination in Geography, 2002, certain errors have been found' Roll number of 35 examinees were mentioned in the said letter where there were errors in the calculation of marks. 5. The Vice-Chancellor by his subsequent order dated 27.8.02 constituted a two-member committee to enquire into the matter and to submit a report. 6. The two-member Enquiry Committee enquired into the matter arid submitted an interim report dated 10.9.02. 5. The Vice-Chancellor by his subsequent order dated 27.8.02 constituted a two-member committee to enquire into the matter and to submit a report. 6. The two-member Enquiry Committee enquired into the matter arid submitted an interim report dated 10.9.02. After recording that the concerned Head Examiner had stated that there were errors in the total marks of Paper-VIII in case of 35 candidates, it was recommended as follows: 'We strongly feel that in view of such errors all the scripts in this paper have to be scrutinized once again to check if there are such errors in case of othe14 candidates. This should be done as quickly as possible and the report be placed before this Committee at the earliest.' Upon receipt of the said interim report, I placed the same before the Vice Chancellor on the same day with my suggestion that two Professors as named therein be requested to scrutinize the scripts as suggested in the interim report by the Enquiry Committee. The Vice-Chancellor approved the suggestion on 19.9.02. 7. The appointed scrutinizers scrutinized the scripts and the accompanying records and prepared a report, which was placed before the two member Enquiry Committee. Upon going through the fresh scrutiny report of all the scripts and after random comparison with the original Award list it was found that there were quite a number of errors over and above which were reported by the concerned Head Examiner. It was even found that the second corrected list sent by the concerned Head Examiner contained as many as four errors as reported by the scrutinizers. In those circumstances the Enquiry Committee recommended as follows: '(l)The marks finally prepared by the scrutinizers appointed by the Controller of Examinations, for all the candidates should be treated as the correct marks obtained by the candidates in Paper VIII Geography (Honours) Practical, in the Examinations of 2002. (2) It is obvious from the available record that no scrutinizers were formally appointed for this purpose and the Head Examiner took the responsibility of scrutiny without reference to the Controller of Examinations. As per admission she took the help of two teachers for preparation of final Award List. (2) It is obvious from the available record that no scrutinizers were formally appointed for this purpose and the Head Examiner took the responsibility of scrutiny without reference to the Controller of Examinations. As per admission she took the help of two teachers for preparation of final Award List. All these are highly irregular and should never be done in future.' The report has since been accepted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and as per the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 10.10.02 fresh mark sheets have been prepared in cases of increased marks only which will be handed over to the concerned examinees upon their surrendering the original mark sheets. 8. As a result of fresh scrutiny of the answer scripts of Paper-VIII, it has come to light that the marks of 199 candidates have been increased and marks of 35 candidates have been decreased. So far as the petitioner is concerned, based on the entry of marks in the Award Slip the mark sheet reflected 42 in Paper-VIII whereas she had in fact obtained 82 in Paper-VIII. The petitioner has already been informed to collect her fresh mark sheet upon surrendering her original mark sheet. It now appear from the records that the petitioner has secured top-most position in subject merit list. 9. It would appear that the University on its own has taken initiative to rectify the errors and has ensured that no injustice is done to any examinee. Xerox copies of the relevant records are enclosed with this report." 34. The above report does not generate any confidence at all. The Head Examiner, according to the report, acted in a manner not warranted by taking upon herself the responsibility of scrutiny without reference to the Controller of Examination and without appointing any scrutinizer. The report suggests that the Head Examiner committed mistake in as many as 234 cases. She represented that 199 candidates received lesser marks than what they were assessed to be entitled to and represented that 35 candidates have scored higher marks than what they were assessed to be entitled to. There is not a single whisper in the report as to how this mistake occurred. I quiet appreciate that in one or two cases there may be mistake, but how such mistake was committed in relation to 234 candidates has not been explained. There is not a single whisper in the report as to how this mistake occurred. I quiet appreciate that in one or two cases there may be mistake, but how such mistake was committed in relation to 234 candidates has not been explained. During the hearing a suggestion was given that marks were awarded in two papers, but in some cases marks of one paper had not been added with the marks of another paper and accordingly it was shown that a candidate has received lesser mark. I quite appreciate that, but, then how 35 candidates could be shown to have received greater marks than what they have actually received? Be that as it may, the self-same Head Examiner reported that there is a mistake in respect of one candidate and accordingly requested the Controller of Examination to rectify such mistakes. At this juncture it should be kept in mind that this request was made after the mark sheets were issued. It is fascinating that while the Head Examiner made such a representation what prevented the Head Examiner from giving a re-rook to the marks of others? If this Head Examiner had not pointed out that solitary mistake, there was no internal mechanism by which the University could ascertain that there are in fact 234 mistakes in showing marks in the mark sheets. The report does not suggest as to what remedial steps the University has taken so that in future these mistakes will not crop up. The University has not stated what steps it has taken against the earring Head Examiner. The University has not suggested how far the earring Head Examiner was accountable. It is to be kept in mind that out of 199 candidates, who were shown to have received lesser marks than what they had actually obtained, only one person had approached this Court. The others have not approached this Court. Except the petitioner, the remaining 198 candidates were unjustly made to believe that they were worth to the extent erroneously shown in the mark sheets issued in their favour. This also demonstrates that the University as well as its students are more interested in quantitative education and not qualitative. The others have not approached this Court. Except the petitioner, the remaining 198 candidates were unjustly made to believe that they were worth to the extent erroneously shown in the mark sheets issued in their favour. This also demonstrates that the University as well as its students are more interested in quantitative education and not qualitative. The petitioner is confident about her quality and accordingly could not believe that she could get anything less than 80 marks in Geography Practical Examination for which she had been shown to have obtained only 42 marks. The courage of the petitioner in approaching this Court stems out from the quality of education she has acquired. The remaining 198 candidates could not master such courage. By not suggesting any remedial measure in the report the University apparently has also shark its responsibility in the matter of advancement of qualitative knowledge, which is not appreciated at all. The fact remains that these incidents will continue to recur unless public accountability and responsibility are instilled in the people dealing with public fate I think it is high time when the Board, the Council, the University as well as the State must look into this aspect of the matter dealt with in this judgment so the same time' do not become victim of callousness on the part of a public officer. 35. W. P. 13992(W) of 2002 is, thus, disposed of. 36. All the above writ petitions are different from one another and accordingly I had dealt with each of them separately but I have dealt with the same in one single judgment in order to focus the points to those who are concerned with education of the students of this State. The makers of the Constitution with their wisdom, which cannot be questioned, under Article 45 of the Constitution have instilled upon the State an obligation to compulsorily impart education to all children until they complete the age of 14 years. In this State education starts at the age of six years. A 14 year child would be in class VIII or would pass Class VIII in this State. Education upto class VIII, therefore, should be compulsory. The compulsion is to teach all children. The quantitative education, therefore, is applicable only upto Class VIII. In this State education starts at the age of six years. A 14 year child would be in class VIII or would pass Class VIII in this State. Education upto class VIII, therefore, should be compulsory. The compulsion is to teach all children. The quantitative education, therefore, is applicable only upto Class VIII. At the same time it must be kept in mind that the children, who have studied upto Class VIII should be educated and therefore, some quality education should be imparted to them while the focus may be on the quantity. The framers of the Constitution by Article 41 have instilled an obligation upon the State to make effective provision for securing the right to education. That appears to be the distinction. Here there must be a right to be educated but not to be compulsorily educated. The right of education, which is available after Class VIII, must be such right which should ensure social and economical benefit to the student and, therefore, such education must be qualitative education. A student, who is appearing in Madhyamik Examination or Higher Secondary Examination or any University Examination, is above the age of 14 years. There is no necessity that all children must be compulsorily educated upto the Secondary or Higher Secondary or College level, but, they should have a right to be so educated. This right can be said to be a right provided there is a contemporaneous advantage for exercising such right; otherwise the right is of no meaning. Unless education at the Secondary, Higher Secondary or college level is qualitative, there is no just reason to exercise such right. My endeavour in this judgment is to highlight the same. The Board, the Council and the University must, therefore, with the assistance of the State thrive to improve upon the qualitative education at their respective level. I have indicated some of the measures in that direction in this judgment. It is upto the Board, the Council and the University to adopt the same or to think about even more better ways of improving quality of education at their respective levels and to implement the same forthwith. 37. I do not believe, though many may not express same belief, that unless a person is well versed in English, he cannot have qualitative education. 37. I do not believe, though many may not express same belief, that unless a person is well versed in English, he cannot have qualitative education. The economics question paper of the University, referred to above, contained questions both in English as well in Bengali. That clearly suggests that even a subject like Economics can be studied in Bengali; If subjects like Economics can be studied in Bengali even at the College level, why it should be insisted that in order to get into the College, i.e., in order to pass Higher Secondary Examination, one must pass English. The Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, which was principally established to conduct public examinations for the purpose of assessing the merit of the students of the then Anglo Indian Schools, proceeds on the basis that the mother language of the students of the Anglo-Indian Schools is English and accordingly does not insist that unless the students pass in the second language, they should not be declared to have passed the public examinations conducted by Council. Today these Anglo Indian Schools hardly have Anglo-Indian students. Most of their students com from every walk of life where their mother tongue is not English. However, the Schools teach those student English as their mother tongue and accordingly the Council for Indian School Certificate Examinations insists that the students appearing in the Examinations conducted by them should pass English. Birch field has observed in Birch field: xvi that a quasi-Darwinian approach to English might attempt to account for the widespread use by claiming that somehow English is more suited, better adapted to use as an international language than others, but, that is nonsense, for English is no more fit than, say, Spanish. Chinese, the reason for this spread of English is political, cultural and economic rather than linguistic. Therefore, despite not being a better language than others, for politifal, cultural and economic reasons, English has become an international language. Even in India the widespread use of English for its diversity generates opportunities and incurs prestige and power. I, therefore, do not suggest for a moment that the students of this State should not be given a right to study English but I have great doubt whether it is wise to make the same compulsory at Secondary or Higher Secondary or College level. I, therefore, do not suggest for a moment that the students of this State should not be given a right to study English but I have great doubt whether it is wise to make the same compulsory at Secondary or Higher Secondary or College level. Suppose a student is desirous of studying Bengali literature and wants to master himself in that, is there any necessity of studying English? At the same time if a student is desirous to become a professional manager, can he do without English at the international or even at national level? The matter must be balanced in that light and accordingly an option must be given to the students. 38. There is no Constitutional need of giving compulsory Secondary or Higher Secondary or College education to the children or the young people of this country. There is, however, a Constitutional mandate upon the State to provide for necessary infrastructure for securing the right to education. This right to education can be exercised provided he is competent to do so. The student will endeavour to make them competent to exercise such right provided the education is meaningful. The education would become meaningful provided the same is qualitative. Because it is not qualitative but is principally quantitative, as appears from the conduct of the educational institutions discussed above, the exercise of right to education has become meaningless as so-called educated people are neither in a position to uplift their social or economic status by reason of such education or to fulfill their desire for the State has not able to make effective provision for securing such right. I think, even after 50 years of Independence it is not so late to reconsider giving of effective qualitative education to the students of the State by making appropriate provisions therefore, so that upon obtaining such education they would become not only responsible citizens but would be entitled to advance their social and economic status. 39. In this judgment I would deal with yet another writ petition and no more. That writ petition was registered as W.P. 13301 (W) of 2002. Before dealing with the subject-matter of the said writ petition it is my duty to point out that when these and similar such matters were being dealt with by this Court and declared results in few cases were being altered, the same received wide media exposure. That writ petition was registered as W.P. 13301 (W) of 2002. Before dealing with the subject-matter of the said writ petition it is my duty to point out that when these and similar such matters were being dealt with by this Court and declared results in few cases were being altered, the same received wide media exposure. By reason thereof many dis-satisfied students and their parents or guardians filed writ petitions, which otherwise they would not have filed, for most of those cases, which have already been disposed of, did not yield any result as was being expected by the petitioners therein. With the filing of large number of writ petitions this Court received a large number of letters voicing similar grievances with request to remedy the same. A few of those letters were handed over to the Board, the Council and the Calcutta University through their respective counsel with request to look into the grievances contained in such letters and do the needful. At that time a letter was received by this Court from one Debasis Mondal. In that Shri Mondal stated that his son, Shri Sailen Mondal, passed Madhyamik Examination, 1999 in first division and thereafter appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination, 2001. It was also stated that when the result of the Higher Secondary Examination, 2001 was published it transpired that Shri Sailen Mondal obtained 56 marks in Chemistry and 5 in Mathematics and accordingly was declared unsuccessful. It was stated that since Sri Sailen Mondal could appear as a compartmental candidate in the said two subjects, he appeared as such in the Higher Secondary Examination, 2002 but when the results came out it transpired that he has obtained zero in both the subjects It was stated that Shri Sailen Mondal and his private tutor were confident that Shri Sailen Mondal could not get anything less than 100 in the said two subjects. It was stated in the letter that Shri Debasis Mondal is a poor cultivator and accordingly is unable to fund the cost of litigation in this Court but at the same time Shri Sailen Mondal, being dejected with the result, is intending to commit suicide and accordingly Shri Debasis Mondal had been constrained to write that letter to this Court with a request to look into the papers of Shri Sailen Mondal and to direct the Council to award the marks actually obtained by him so as to prevent Shri Sailen Mondal from committing suicide. Having regard to such kind of contention this Court directed that the said letter be treated as a writ petition by Shri Sailen Mondal against the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, with a direction upon the Council to look into the matter. Accordingly W .P. 13301 (W) of 2002 was registered. The Council looked into the matter and then wanted to file an affidavit. In the meantime Shri Debasis Mondal wrote yet another letter to this Court and therein contended that he has been able to arrange for some funds and if this Court informs him as to the date of hearing of the matter he would appear along with his counsel. 40. From the affidavit filed by the Council it appears that the Media not only reported this incident, but while doing so, according to the Council, distorted facts. Be that as it may, it has been mentioned in the affidavit that after the Court directed the Council to look into the matter, the answer scripts of Shri Sailen Mondal in Mathematics and Chemistry both for 2001 and 2002 were traced out and same were carefully looked into by the Council and no error or mistake of any kind was found therein. It has been stated that in 2001 Shri Sailen Mondal obtained 56 out of 200 marks in Chemistry and 5 out of200 marks in Mathematics. In 2002 Shri Sailen Mondal obtained once again 56 out of 200 marks in Chemistry and 6 out of 200 marks in Mathematics and the same have been correctly reflected in the mark sheet issued in his favour. In 2002 Shri Sailen Mondal obtained once again 56 out of 200 marks in Chemistry and 6 out of 200 marks in Mathematics and the same have been correctly reflected in the mark sheet issued in his favour. It has further been stated that Shri Sailen Mondal had applied for Post Publication Scrutiny of the result of Higher Secondary Examination, 2001 and the result thereof was duly communicated to him through the School through which he had appeared, in accordance with the rules of the Council. The relevant portion of the Gazette of Post Publication Scrutiny results has been annexed to the affidavit. It has been stated that no application had been made by Shri Sailen Mondal for Post Publication Scrutiny of his 2002 result. In the affidavit copy of a letter of Shri Debasis Mondal addressed to the Secretary of the Council has been annexed. It appears that the said letter was written prior to the letter written to this Court by him. In that letter it was stated that Shri Sailen Mondal could not fail for he is otherwise a good student and accordingly it is felt that Sailen Mondal has failed due to incorrect assessment of his answers or in view of non-consideration of his answers at all. It was stated that he has complained about the matter to the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge' of Education and if appropriate steps are not taken, he would approach the High Court. It was also mentioned that Sailen Mondal is attempting to commit suicide and the expectations of a large number of students is being shattered by reason of dissatisfactory performance on the part of the Council. 41. When other letters were handed over to the Board, the Council and the Calcutta University through their respective Counsel and when writ petition No.13301 (W) of2002 was registered the intention of this Court was simply to bring to the notice of the Board, the Council and the University to look into such grievances so that they can, in discharge of their public duty, do justice to the cases, if not already done. It is to be kept in mind that when expert bodies like the Board, Council and the University have been entrusted the duty of conducting public examinations, unless contrary is shown and established, it must be deemed that they have discharged their duties in accordance with law. It is to be kept in mind that when expert bodies like the Board, Council and the University have been entrusted the duty of conducting public examinations, unless contrary is shown and established, it must be deemed that they have discharged their duties in accordance with law. These public functionaries are experts in their fields. Normally the manner and method of their conduct particularly in the matter of assessment should not be interfered with, nor can be interfered with even by a judicial review court, which is deemed to be the expert of experts. However, even these public institutions function through human agencies. The assessment, awarding of marks, scrutinization and ultimate publication of results by these public institutions take place through the instrumentality of human beings. Since human nature is to err, when a complaint as to assessment, awarding of marks, scrutinisation and publication of result comes from a person affected, the duty of the judicial review court is to request such public functionaries to have a re-look into the matter and to find out whether by reason of any mistake a person has been shown to be worth less than what he is otherwise. The Court, despite being expert of experts, cannot, under any circumstances, award either higher mark or lesser mark to a candidate than what has been awarded to him by the person entrusted with the job of assessing the merit of the answers given by him to the question put forward to him in a public examination. The judicial review court, however, can direct rectification of mistakes, if any, in the matter of assessment as well as in the process of assessment. When a father stated in a letter to a judicial review Court that his son is otherwise a good student and could not do as has been shown to have been done by him and by reason thereof the son is attempting to commit suicide, the judicial review court manned by a human being took this measure for the purpose of finding out whether by reason of any mistake committed by a public functionary, the son of the complainant has any reason to be aggrieved and accordingly such step was taken. The purpose thereof has been fulfilled as the papers of Shri Sailen Mondal have been re-Iooked and it was found that there is no mistake at all. The matter must rest there. 42. The purpose thereof has been fulfilled as the papers of Shri Sailen Mondal have been re-Iooked and it was found that there is no mistake at all. The matter must rest there. 42. In the matter of pursuing education, as is known, established and available, there may be failures. A good student for some reason or the other despite giving best effort may do poorly in a public examination conducted for the purpose of assessment of the standard of education acquired by him. At that stage the student needs the protection and support of his immediate family. At times the members of the immediate family are oblivious of the person in the unsuccessful student and are more concerned about the failure, for they highlight the failure larger than life and accuse the ability of the person for the failure, which in turn pushes the unsuccessful student to the brink where he might commit an act which is utterly abnormal. I do not think that the unsuccessful student can be blamed for the ultimate step that he takes in such circumstances. The people, who are to be blamed, are those who force the students to commit such acts by their mannerism and behaviour. This is a social evil which must be eradicated forthwith. It must be kept in mind that one failure does not bring to an end the greatest gift of the God, the life of human being. When a family faces a situation of this nature, unitedly they should stand behind the failed student to give him encouragement so that he does not feel ostracized. For that also meaningful qualitative education is a must. Level of education must be of that nature that the same would enrich the students at each level of success. He should never feel that for one failure he is doomed. 43. Inasmuch as Debasis Mondal represented in the letter that he is unable to afford the cost of litigation in this Court, as a special case his letter was treated as a writ petition. He should never feel that for one failure he is doomed. 43. Inasmuch as Debasis Mondal represented in the letter that he is unable to afford the cost of litigation in this Court, as a special case his letter was treated as a writ petition. When similar such letters were received making almost similar complaints, but not apprehended suicide by the unsuccessful student, steps as aforesaid, were taken to make available such complaints to such public authorities so that steps could be taken to redress the complaints, but, when by a subsequent letter Debasis Mondal held out that he can come to Court and engage his counsel, no further steps to that effect had been taken, for the helpless poverty, as was represented by Debasis Mondal, turned out to be untrue, though the other complainants have also taken the plea that for their poverty they cannot fund the litigation cost of this Court. I, however, direct that all those letters be made part of the records of this writ petitions so that they become official records with the hope that conscious public officers would take appropriate steps, if need be, in relation to the complaints contained therein. 44. W.P. 13301 (W) of 2002 is, thus, disposed of. 45. Before parting with I would like to mention that the learned counsel for the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education brought to my notice many a Media Publications and submitted that those publications contained distorted facts, false allegations and false assertions. He also submitted that some of those publications tend to interfere with the administration of justice. A request was made to issue a Silo moto rule of contempt against the creators of those publications. I have refrained to do so. These public examinations are such that every family in the State is directly connected with it. There is hardly any household in the State whose members are not either appearing in these examinations or would be appearing in these examination in the very near future. If in such an examination, even in one case, there is a upward revision, that would necessarily unnerve the entire population of the State, for everyone would feel naturally that he or his immediate family member may have been or would become a victim of the mistake or negligence on the part of the public functionaries entrusted to conduct these examinations. This mass apprehension, when reflected in media reports, exceed the natural bounds of media reporting and may at time become hysteric. Even if these reports are inappropriate it would not be proper to gag them. On the other hand, it would be proper for those public officers dealing with the mass to rectify themselves and their way of working so that in future there is no repetition of what has happened. 46. There will be no order as to costs. 47. Let the certified xerox-copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties as early as possible.