Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1252 (PAT)

Ugra Narayan Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2017-09-18

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2017
ORDER : A narration of the facts of the present case is no less than the script of a comedy drama, which has serious features with comic elements, played by the Bihar School Examination Board (in short ‘Board’), which is the creation of a State Act, namely, Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (in short ‘Act’), and is responsible for conducting examinations, under the Act. 2. The present matter relates to examination, conducted by the Board for Teachers Dakshta/Efficiency Examination, 2014, held on 07.02.2015. The said test was held to evaluate the efficiency of teachers, who are already employed and working. It was a multiple-choice objective-type test and an evaluation was done, adopting the process of Optical Mark Reading (in short ‘OMR’). 3. Altogether 7548 (Seven thousand five hundred forty eight) teachers had appeared at the said Teachers Dakshta/ Efficiency Examination, 2014. The petitioner was working as Nagar Nikay Shikshak in Sarvoday Higher Secondary Ganga Sagar School, Darbhanga. He was declared 'Fail.' He, not being satisfied with the evaluation of his answer-sheet, approached the Board for redressal of his grievance. The Board refused to consider his request, on the ground that there was no provision for scrutiny, since the answer-sheets had been checked by adopting the OMR system. The petitioner, thereafter, applied under the Right to Information Act, 2002 (in short ‘RTI Act’), seeking certain information including a copy of his response sheet, the question paper and model answers prepared by the Board for evaluation of the answer scripts. He obtained the desired information under the RTI Act and on analyzing the information received, he found his apprehension to be correct. On seeing the model answers, he found, on the basis of caption given at the top of the said model answers, that the set of model answers, prepared for “senior secondary teachers”, had been used for evaluating the OMR sheet of the petitioner, though he was an applicant for efficiency test as “secondary teacher”. 4. The petitioner with the grievance as above has approached this court seeking direction to the Board to publish his result on the basis of correct answers to the questions and his performance in the test. It is manifest from the model answers brought on record by the petitioner and the question paper of the said test, that the model answers had nothing to do with the questions of the question paper, so set. It is manifest from the model answers brought on record by the petitioner and the question paper of the said test, that the model answers had nothing to do with the questions of the question paper, so set. The petitioner is a teacher in Commerce. Examination has been held subject-wise, i.e., for secondary teachers, there were 100 questions to be answered. Question Nos. 1 to 25 were common for all teachers and rest of the questions, i.e., 26 to 100, depended upon the subject a particular teacher, had/has been appointed for. As has been indicated above, the petitioner, being a commerce teacher, had to answer set of questions, 75 in number (Question No. 26 to 100) prepared for commerce teachers, in addition to 25 questions which were common for all teachers. Similar had been the situation in other subjects for other teachers also. 5. The Court, finding discrepancies manifest and apparent, asked the Board to file an affidavit. The counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the Board, sworn by the Chairman of the Board, is narrative of the pathetic manner in which the tests have been conducted and evaluation of answer scripts done. It discloses the extent to which the a statutory body such as the Board can act in such a casual and cavalier manner. The Board denies the contention of the petitioner that his answer-sheet has been evaluated, on the basis of model answers prepared for secondary school teachers efficiency test, in the subject of commerce. It is the plea of the Board that the said model answers were in fact prepared for 'secondary school' teachers though it erroneously carried the nomenclature of 'senior secondary school', in the subject of commerce, but it admits that out of 75 model answers, only 16 of them had been correctly prepared by the Board. Meaning thereby, that the model answers, which are the basis for evaluation of the answer-sheets, are incorrect for nearly 80% of the questions. This court is dismayed by the callous attitude of the Board. Such evaluation had the obvious consequence that most of the answers correctly given by the candidates, have earned zero marks while for incorrect responses candidates have scored marks. This is nothing, but a mockery of the entire process undertaken for the purpose of testing efficiency of teachers. 6. More shocking is the attitude of the Board. Such evaluation had the obvious consequence that most of the answers correctly given by the candidates, have earned zero marks while for incorrect responses candidates have scored marks. This is nothing, but a mockery of the entire process undertaken for the purpose of testing efficiency of teachers. 6. More shocking is the attitude of the Board. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that being dissatisfied with the result, he had approached the Board for redressal of his grievance. The Board refused to consider his case, on the ground that there was no provision for scrutiny. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application, under RTI Act, to get all the relevant information in this regard. After receiving the information, the petitioner approached this Court in July, 2017. Despite having taken notice of filing of the writ application, the Board did not promptly take remedial measures and only after the Court took a serious note of the matter, on 10.08.2017, it started contemplating revision of the result of the commerce stream. As has been noticed above, on 12.08.2017, the Board constituted a Committee. The Expert Committee gave its report on 16.08.2017, finding that out of 75 model answers suggested for the Commerce subject, only 16 answers were correct, whereas, 59 were incorrect. The petitioner’s OMR sheet is said to have been, thereafter, placed before the Expert Committee for the purpose of rectification. After such rectification, it has been found that the petitioner deserved 19 marks out of 25 (Common Questions) and 55 marks out of 75 (Commerce Subject). Accordingly, he has now been awarded 74 marks. Earlier he was awarded 35 marks. There is a statement in the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by the Chairman of the Board himself, that needful has been done towards publication of the amended result of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, informs this Court that till date amended result has not been released. 8. The facts, narrated above, go to demonstrate the sufferings which the petitioner must have been made to undergo because of the reckless and arbitrary action of the Board. 9. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board, has attempted to submit that since the petitioner’s grievance has been redressed, this application has become infructuous. 8. The facts, narrated above, go to demonstrate the sufferings which the petitioner must have been made to undergo because of the reckless and arbitrary action of the Board. 9. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board, has attempted to submit that since the petitioner’s grievance has been redressed, this application has become infructuous. He has also submitted that result of efficiency test of secondary school teachers, in commerce subject as a whole, is in process of being revised, which might have already been completed by now and, therefore, this application should be dismissed as having become infructuous. 10. I do not think this should be the end of the matter. The facts of the case are revealing and speak volumes about the way the Board has misconducted itself in holding efficiency test of teachers. Possibility of similar blunders, in other subjects, cannot be ruled out. I would have directed the Board itself to verify the correctness of model answers, on the basis of which evaluation of answer-sheets have been made in other subjects, but I find myself unable to muster up sufficient confidence to entrust the Board with the job. I had made my intentions clear on the last date of hearing that I will be referring the matter to one of the top officials of the State of Bihar to examine the correctness of the method of evaluation adopted by the Board, in all subjects, in respect of secondary school teachers as well as senior secondary schools teachers for which the tests were held in the year 2015. 11. I have been given the impression that Member, Board of Revenue of the State of Bihar is one of the top and senior most officials in the State of Bihar. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the Member, Board of Revenue to examine and ascertain the correctness of model answers, prepared by the Board, for evaluating answer-sheets of Teachers Efficiency Test, held in the year 2015, in all subjects other than Commerce, both for secondary teachers and senior secondary teachers. The Member, Board of Revenue, shall be at liberty to constitute a Committee of Academicians to assist him in coming to a definite conclusion. 12. The Member, Board of Revenue, shall be at liberty to constitute a Committee of Academicians to assist him in coming to a definite conclusion. 12. For the said purpose, the Chairman of the Board will be required to make available all the question papers and model answers to the Member, Board of Revenue, within a period of one week from today. 13. The Member, Board of Revenue, is requested to submit his report including suggestions, based on the enquiry so held, on correctness of the model answers etc. within a period of one month from the date the documents, as indicate above, are made available to him by the Chairman of the Board. I direct all concerned to assist the Member, Board of Revenue in this matter as and when the Member, Board of Revenue feels necessary. 14. I am conscious of the fact that the Board is a creation of Statute. By the present order, I am not constituting any authority above the Board, rather the order of this nature is being passed keeping in mind the peculiar facts of this case and for the purpose of getting essential feedback for passing appropriate orders, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. List this matter, under the same heading, on 30.10.2017 at 10:30 A.M. when this Court would also consider the quantum of cost to be imposed on the Board. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, forthwith.