Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1499 (MP)

Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal v. Shubha

2013-12-02

M.C.GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2013
ORDER 1. This writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 30.8.2013 passed in W.P. No. 9751/2012 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby, the learned Single Judge has directed revaluation of the marks obtained by the respondent in her Political Science paper subject to deposit of sum of Rs.5000/- in the office of the respondent within two months. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced here as under:- Keeping in view submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and also keeping in view the mark-sheet it can safely be said that the petitioner is a brilliant girl, who secured 352 marks out of 400 in all the subjects except political science in which petitioner secured 60 marks out of 100. Percentage of marks which the petitioner secured in other subjects is 88% but including political science it is reduced to 82%. Keeping in view the allegations made and answer-sheet of political science, petition is disposed of with a short direction that upon production of copy of the order passed by this Court today along with copy of representation, the competent authority shall get the answer book re-examined/retotalled by two experts of the Subject. Petitioner is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- in the office of respondents. Needful be done within two months. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that this order is not sustainable in law for the reason that the regulation framed by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, there is no provision for directing revaluation. Reference has been made to the Rule 119/1, which reads as under:- 119(1) Any candidate who has appeared at the examination may apply to the Secretary for verification whether the candidate’s answers, in any particular subject, have all been examined and that there has been no mistake in the totaling of marks in that subject and transferring marks correctly, but not for evaluation of answers. Such an application must be made by the candidate to the Board within 30 days (thirty) from the date of declaration of examination results and must be accompanied by a fee as may be prescribed from time to time by the board. Such an application must be made by the candidate to the Board within 30 days (thirty) from the date of declaration of examination results and must be accompanied by a fee as may be prescribed from time to time by the board. (2) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to re-examination of his answer/answer (s) or disclosure or inspection of the answer-books or other documents treated by the Board as most confidential. (3) If, as result of the verification made under this Regulation, it is discovered that there has been either an omission to examine and mark any answer or answers and /or a mistake in the totalling of the marks, the fee for verification shall be refunded to the candidate, if a mistake is discovered it shall be corrected by the Secretary duly attested and dated, and if as a result of this correction the candidate’s result, as already declared, is altered in any way, he shall be informed of his result by a telegram. (4) If, on verification, a failed candidate is found to have passed in the examination, he will be declared to have qualified for the same examination. (5) If a candidate having paid the fees prescribed under clause (1) fails to forward his application for verification within two weeks of the payment of fees or having made the application within the aforesaid period, omits to give the following details in his application:- (I) Name, Examination, Roll Number and Center : (ii) Subject in which verification of marks desired. (iii) Language used for answering the paper in that subject. No steps shall be taken for consideration. (6) All the valued answer-books of the Board’s examination will be destroyed after the period of 120 days (one hundred twenty) from the date of declaration of the results and no identification of any of the answer books shall be possible being under process of their destruction. 3. On the other hand, the respondents have pointed out that it is a case of gross negligence, inasmuch as, from the copy of the paper given by the respondents has obtained through RTI, it is apparent that despite the answers having been given by the respondent correctly with respect to all the questions, the respondent was only granted sixty marks out of one hundred which reduced her overall percentage. 4. 4. It is matter of record that the appellant did not file reply to the aforesaid writ petition so as to question the averments made by the respondents with respect to the veracity of the marking done in her case. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that in such case when, it is clear from the marking of the paper that there was the gross negligence of the valuer, this Court is competent enough to direct revaluation. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Priyanka Pandey v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, MP and another reported in AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 235. The relevant observation made in the aforesaid judgment which is based upon another judgment of this High Court itself is reproduced here as under:- 4. In this context, we may refer to the decision rendered in the case of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal v. Rajeev Gupta, (L.P.A. No.295/2001) decided on 26.2.2004, whereby the Division Bench has held as under:- “As a general rule, the Court has no power to order revaluating of the paper since the rules do not provide for revaluation. However, in extraordinary cases where the student is bright and where injustice has been done in the case of evaluation of the marks specially in subjects like Mathematics and Science, it is some times open to the Court to have a look at the answer sheet and compare with the model answers papers and if there are gross discrepancies in awarding marks, it is always open to the Court to direct the Board to revaluate the marks.” 5. It is worth reporting that in subject like mathematics which is not a descriptive subject revaluation had been directed. In a subject like Sanskrit, when most of the questions relates to grammar, they can be evaluated as there can be only one answer. 6. Quite apart from the above as Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel would contend that the appellant has had a brilliant career and, therefore, it would fall in the second compartment as enumerated in paragraph 7of the decision rendered in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya (supra). 6. 6. Quite apart from the above as Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel would contend that the appellant has had a brilliant career and, therefore, it would fall in the second compartment as enumerated in paragraph 7of the decision rendered in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya (supra). 6. In view of the aforesaid, since the appellant has not even cared to reply the averments made in the writ petition on merits, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the order of learned Single Judge.