Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2266 (MAD)

S. Vishudha v. The Secretary to Government

2015-06-22

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner would state that she has passed X Standard examination in CBSE Syllabus and secured 10/10 Grade i.e., “A1” Grade and after finishing her XII Standard Examination in Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus during the academic year 2013-2015, appeared in the Board Examination held during March, 2015, and secured the following marks:- SUBJECT MARKS Tamil 195 English 187 Physics 198 Chemistry 197 Biology 197 Mathematics 199 Total 1173 out of 1200 3. The petitioner would further state that the cut-off mark for admission to MBBS Course secured by her, is 197.25 out of 200 and she belongs to OC Category and her aim is to secure admission and join in the MBBS Course and therefore, she applied for photocopy of the XII Answer Sheets in respect of the academic subjects viz. Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology, by paying the prescribed fees and accordingly, answer sheets were furnished by the second respondent on 28.5.2015. 4. According to the petitioner, after perusing the Answer Sheets, she applied for revaluation in respect of Physics paper alone for the reason that for Question No.65, she was awarded 9 out of 10 marks, whereas, she is entitled for full marks i.e., 10/10, for the reason that she has written the correct answer as per the Key Answer/Text Book; but, she was not awarded 1 mark for the 4th step in respect of Question No.65. 5. The petitioner would further state that she applied for revaluation on 1.6.2015, for the Physics paper alone and the second respondent has published the result of the revaluation on 15.6.2015, wherein, 2 marks were deducted in the Physics paper and she was awarded 196 out of 200 in that subject, and on account of the said reduction, her total marks became 1171 out of 1200, from the original marks of 1173/1200 and consequently, her cut-off mark is reduced by 0.50. The petitioner aggrieved by the said fact, has filed this writ petition praying for quashment of the reduction of mark in the Physics subject and also for restoration of marks originally awarded to her as per the original mark sheet, and for other consequential reliefs. 6. The petitioner aggrieved by the said fact, has filed this writ petition praying for quashment of the reduction of mark in the Physics subject and also for restoration of marks originally awarded to her as per the original mark sheet, and for other consequential reliefs. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the xerox copy of the Answer Script pertaining to Question No.65, and would submit that there is a minor error crept in in the first step, and therefore, the Examiner is not at all justified in not awarding 1 mark and in any event, he ought to have reduced the mark by = only. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that as per the instructions given to the Examiners, for answers in part II, III and IV like reasoning, explaining, narrating, describing and listing the points, students may write in their own words, but without changing the concepts and without skipping any point, and in the light of the said instructions, instead of not awarding 1 mark to the first step, the Examiner ought to have awarded at least = mark and in that event, justice will be rendered to the petitioner and prays for appropriate orders. 7. The matter was listed for admission on 17.6.2015, and Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned Standing Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of fourth respondent, and at their request, the matter was directed to be listed on 19.6.2015. On that date, at the request of the learned Government Advocate to get better instructions, it was directed to be listed today. 8. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that admittedly, the first step in Question No.65, is not in consonance with the Text Book as well as the Key Answer and therefore, the petitioner was not awarded any mark and would further submit that a student is expected to write as it is in the Text Book and since she has not done so, no mark has been awarded. The learned Government Advocate has also drawn the attention of this Court to the inner page No.10 of the Key Answer. 9. The learned Government Advocate has also drawn the attention of this Court to the inner page No.10 of the Key Answer. 9. It is relevant to extract the answer written by the petitioner, which is at page No.55 of the typed-set and inner page No.34 of the Answer Book, and also the Key Answer at page No.69 of the typed-set and inner page No.10 of the Key Answer, as under:- ANSWER BY THE PETITIONER: “the coil is rotated with a angular velocity wt, then induced e.m.f. in the coil, e = -dx/dt = -d/dt (NBA cos ?) e = - NBA d/dt (cos wt) e = NBA w sin wt The induced e.m.f. is e = NBA w sin wt. The maximum e.m.f. is, Eo = NBA w.” KEY ANSWER: “Changing orientation diagram with graph Explanation x = NBA cos? e = - dx/dt (OR) e = NBA wsin wt E0 = NBA w e = E0 sin wt five positions of the coil ( 5 x )” 10. As per the Key Answer, the correct answer to the above said question is “e = - dx/dt (OR) e = NBA wsin wt”. However, the petitioner has written the answer as “e = -dx/dt = -d/dt (NBA cos ?)”. 11. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, that since the answer is like a formula, the students are expected to write the correct answer without any deviation whatsoever, and admittedly, the petitioner has committed a mistake while writing the said answer, and therefore, no mark was awarded to the said step. 12. On the other hand, it is the vehement submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that since there is a minor error that has crept in, the Examiner ought to have awarded at least, = mark. 13. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for the reason that as per the Text Book and Key Answer, the correct answer should be written as stated above. The learned Government Advocate was right in making the submission that since it is a formula, the answers should be written as it is and no deviation should be there. Therefore, the Examiner was correct in not awarding 1 mark to the said step. 14. The learned Government Advocate was right in making the submission that since it is a formula, the answers should be written as it is and no deviation should be there. Therefore, the Examiner was correct in not awarding 1 mark to the said step. 14. Insofar as Question No.51 is concerned, the petitioner has written the answer as follows:- “i) Lines of force originate from the positive terminal and end at the negative terminal.” 15. However, as per the Text Book, the answer to the above said question is as under:- “(i) Lines of force start from positive charge and terminate at negative charge”. 16. It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that “termination” is equivalent to “charge”. However, the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that the terminal is entirely different from charge and since the petitioner has written a wrong answer, 1 mark was reduced at the time of revaluation. A comparison of the answer written by the petitioner with the Text Book would reveal that the answer written by the petitioner, is not in consonance with the version given in the Text Book, and therefore, 1 mark was reduced in revaluation. 17. Similarly, in respect of Question No.68 also, the diagram is not in consonance with the Key Answer as well as the Text Book and therefore, = mark was reduced. 18. It is to be pointed out at this juncture, that the revaluation itself is a matter of concession and the said benefit has been granted to the students, taking into consideration the fact that a pass in the Higher Secondary Course, is a step towards higher education. The petitioner knowing the consequence of revaluation, has applied for it and unfortunately, her mark got reduced. 19. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, requires this Court to once again revalue the paper by appointing a teacher from a private institution. In the considered opinion of the Court, it cannot be done so as it amounts to double revaluation. 20. Though this Court sympathizes the petitioner, is not in a position to grant any relief to her in the light of the above facts and circumstances. 21. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.