Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 154 (GAU)

Ramesh Rajbongshi v. State of Assam

2020-02-06

NANI TAGIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned standing counsel SEBA. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be given to the respondent-authorities to enhance the marks obtained by the son of the petitioner in the theory of Social Science to 74 in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2016 (HSLC) and also to place the rank of the son of the petitioner in the 19th position of the merit list of first 20 position in the HSLC examination 2016. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows: (i) In HSLC examination for the year 2016 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the son of the petitioner appeared and on declaration of the result, the son of the petitioner did not find place in the top 20 position and was placed beyond 20th position. On receipt of the Marks Tally Sheet through RTI, the petitioner found that in respect of Social Science subject his son was not awarded any marks in respect of the answer which he had given to question No. 29 and 31, respectively. However, it was found that the son of the writ petitioner had actually answered the question Nos. 29 and 31 of the Social Science subject, respectively and was also awarded a mark of 6 and 1, respectively, for the answer which the son of the petitioner had given to the question numbers 29 and 31, respectively for the Social Science subject. (ii) The son of the petitioner submitted an applicant dated 28.10.2016 to the Secretary, SEBA to include the 7 marks which was awarded to the son of the petitioner against the question Nos. 29 and 31, respectively, of the Social Science subject. Thereafter, in response to the application submitted by the petitioner's son on 28.10.2016, the Secretary, SEBA gave a reply to the son of the petitioner vide reply dated 18.11.2016 (annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition), stating that the Answer Book of the Social Science subject has been re-examined by engaging a subject expert and it was found that 5 marks had been enhanced in the Social Science paper. As the petitioner's son had actually been awarded 7 marks in total for the answer he had given to the question Nos. As the petitioner's son had actually been awarded 7 marks in total for the answer he had given to the question Nos. 29 and 31, respectively, of the Social Science subject, the son of the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 29.11.2016 praying for adding 7 marks in total which was already awarded to him by the first examiner instead of - 5 marks. As the representation dated 29.11.2016 did not yield any positive response from the authorities, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction for enhancement of the marks in the theory of Social Science for his son to 74 with a further prayer for placing the son of the petitioner in the 19th position of the merit list of first 20 position in the HSLC Examination, 2016. 4. The respondent-authorities through the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed their counter-affidavit, wherein, in paragraph 6 it has been stated that for the subject of Social Science in case of question No. 29 the original examiner had awarded 6 marks which were not entered in the Tally Sheet of covering page but on re-examination the engaged subject expert had awarded 4 marks instead of 6 marks as the answer was not satisfactory to deserve 6 marks. In case of question No. 31, the original examiner had awarded 1 mark which was not entered in the top of Tally Sheet of the Answer script, the new subject expert had reported that the mark was justified. Thus, as per recommendation of the subject expert, 5 marks was enhanced in the subject Social Science taking the total marks obtained by the son of the writ petitioner to be 72 out of 80 marks. In paragraph 7, it is further been stated that re-examination does not mean re-evaluation of the Answer Script. As per regulation of the Board, re-examination means (a) a re-totalling of the marks awarded by the examiner (b) assessment of answers which has/have been left out unevaluated and (c) correction of wrong entry of marks in any manner/nature. 5. An additional-affidavit have also been filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, wherein, in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, it has been explained as to how the evaluation of the answer-script of the petitioner's son as well as others were conducted. Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the Additional-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 5. An additional-affidavit have also been filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, wherein, in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, it has been explained as to how the evaluation of the answer-script of the petitioner's son as well as others were conducted. Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the Additional-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been quoted herein below: “…2. That deponent begs to state that while the result of HSLC Examination, 2016 was declared, the son of the petitioner got 67 marks out of 80 marks in the subject Social Science. The internal assessment mark awarded to the son of the petitioner was 20 marks. Total marks 67 + 20 = 87 marks. The son of the petitioner got 83.75% of marks on the subject Social Science at the time of declaration of result of HSLC Examination, 2016. Therefore, Instruction to Zonal Officer, Head Examiner, Scrutinizer and Examiner under the Spot Evaluation of Answer Books, the marks of the son of the petitioner (83.75%) on the subject Social Science was not under the consideration of Clause 7.09 of the Spot Evaluation of Answer Books. But after re-checking of the answer scripts of Social Science 1 + 6 marks was not added in the Tally sheet on the top of the answer script. If the 7 marks are added to 67 marks then it becomes 74 marks out of 80 marks, i.e., more than 85%. As per instruction under clause 7.09 of the Spot Evaluation of Answer Books, the Head Examiner of each Evaluation Zone is required to submit answer books of 3 highest marks of each subject (for which there may be more than 3 answer books) secured under his/her head Examiner-ship along with the report, in a separate packet. Before sending the aforesaid answer books separately, the Head examiner is to ensure that the mark secured in this answer books have entered in the corresponding mark-foils. In addition to the answer books of the 3 highest marks as stated above, all answer books securing very high marks shall sent to SEBA office separately after entering the marks in the corresponding mark-foils. In addition to the answer books of the 3 highest marks as stated above, all answer books securing very high marks shall sent to SEBA office separately after entering the marks in the corresponding mark-foils. Meaning thereby that had the marks 67 + 7 = 74, i.e., 92.5% been awarded to the subject Social Science of the son of the petitioner, the Head Examiner would have sent the said answer scripts to the office of the SEBA separately after entering the marks in the corresponding mark-foils. The said subject would have been under the purview of clause 7.90 of the Spot Evaluation of Answer Books and it will be under special re-checking by the subject expert. 3. That the deponent begs to state that the answer scripts sent under clause 7.09 of Spot Evaluation of Answer Books are probable of list of rank holders. Therefore, these answer scripts are very carefully re-checked and scrutinized and these are given extra effort under the supervision of subject experts for eligible to the Top Ten Position. In this process marks given original examiner may be increased or decreased for many reasons according to the subject experts. Accordingly, had the 7 marks been detected at the initial stage and the same was added to the total marks obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner would have been considered to amongst the probable list of Top Ten rank holders and his answer scripts would have been re-checked/scrutinized under clause 7.09 of Spot Evaluation of Answer Books along with the other very high marks getting answer books for selection to the Top Ten position. After re-checking one by one in detail by the Re-examiner his marks under clause 7.09 of Spot Evaluation of Answer Books and the Re-examiner found that Q. No. 29, the petitioner was awarded 6 marks out of 6 marks by the original examiner. After scrutiny of the said question, Re-examiner found many discrepancies in the content of the exact answer against Q. No. 29 and awarded 4 marks out of 6 marks. In the same light of re-examination in case of Q. No. 31, 1 mark was left to enter in the marks tally sheet of the cover page of the answer script. Therefore, he is entitled to 1 mark more to be added to the total script. In the same light of re-examination in case of Q. No. 31, 1 mark was left to enter in the marks tally sheet of the cover page of the answer script. Therefore, he is entitled to 1 mark more to be added to the total script. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for 4 + 1 = 5 marks more to be added to his total marks in the marks sheet of HSLC Examination, 2016. There is no any violation of Rules and Regulations in awarding 4 marks from the original 6 marks.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the respondent-authorities in their counter-affidavit themselves have stated in paragraph 7 that re-examination does not mean re-evaluation of the Answer script and the re-examination only means re-totalling of the marks awarded by the examiner/assessment of answers which have been left out unevaluated and correction of wrong entry of marks, the re-evaluation done by the respondent-authorities by engaging a subject expert, insofar as, question Nos. 29 and 31 of the Social Science subject of the petitioner's son as indicated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit due to which 2 marks have been deducted from the original marks that was awarded by the original examiner in respect of question No. 29, is illegal and the same needs to be interfered with. 7. The learned standing counsel for the SEBA does not dispute the proposition that there cannot be a re-evaluation in the garb of re-examination of the Answer script and the re-examination of the answer script means re-totalling of the marks already allotted; assessment of left out unevaluated questions and correction of wrong entry of marks. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that non-placing of the petitioner's son in top 20 position has occurred due to the explanation provided in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the Additional-affidavit. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as well as on perusal of the materials on record, it has remained undisputed that son of the petitioner was originally awarded 6 marks in respect of the answer which he had given to the question No. 29 and 1 mark for the answer which he had given for question No. 31, respectively, of the Social Science subject. Although, 7 marks in total were originally awarded to the son of the petitioner in respect of question No. 29 and 31 of the Social Science subject, yet, it was not included in the final Marks Tally Sheet. It was because of non-addition of the 7 marks awarded to the son of the petitioner in respect of question Nos. 29 and 31 of the Social Science subject which resulted in the son of the petitioner being placed beyond 20th position. 9. It has also remained undisputed that the Board, i.e., SEBA cannot re-evaluate the Answer script under the relevant regulation. If the Board does not have the power to re-evaluate the answer script, which had already been evaluated, the exercise undertaken by the respondent-authorities in the present case, whereby, the answer script of the petitioner's son have been re-evaluated in respect of question Nos. 29 and 31 of the Social Science subject by engaging a subject expert despite the same having been already evaluated, thereby, reducing 2 marks from the original allotted marks is liable to be held to be contrary to the Regulation governing the re-examination of the Answer scripts by the Board and, thus, beyond the powers of the Board/SEBA. The explanation provided in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, quoted hereinabove, apart from explaining how the evaluation was done also does not indicate that the Board/SEBA has the power to re-evaluate the answer scripts. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that in deducting 2 marks against the question No. 29 of the Social Science subject of the petitioner's son from the original marks awarded by the original examiner on a re-evaluation being made by the Board by engaging a subject expert is held to be illegal. Accordingly, the son of the petitioner is entitled to 2 more marks in respect of question No. 29 of the Social Science subject which would bring the total mark of the son of the petitioner to 567. And consequently, the son of the petitioner would be entitled to be placed in the 19th position in the HSLC Examination, 2016. 11. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above.