JUDGMENT N Kotiswar Singh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Roy, learned counsel for the AHSEC for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, Mr. R. Thadani, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Ms. N.M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. 2. In this petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-authorities to reevaluate the answer scripts of two subjects, namely, English and Logic & Philosophy. Shorn of the detail facts, it would suffice to say that the petitioner is aggrieved in respect of certain marks given in English subject as well as in Logic & Philosophy subject in the Higher Secondary Final Examination, 2018 of Arts Stream under the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Assam (hereinafter referred to as ''the Council''), in which examination she had performed commendably well scoring 475 marks out of 500 with aggregate 95% (which has been considered as distinction) in the said examination. Though, the petitioner came out in the said examination with flying colours, the petitioner was expecting more marks and accordingly, applied for copies of the answer scripts in respect of the aforesaid two subjects by filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Accordingly, on perusal of the answer scripts as made available to the petitioner by the Council authorities, the petitioner felt that she was under evaluated and that she was given less marks than what she deserved. 4. The following is one of the questions in which the petitioner feels that she ought to have been given more marks than what she has been given. wxyz In respect of question No.4 in English subject to which the petitioner thinks that she has been given less mark, the question is as follows: zyxw wxyz "4. Write a letter to the Editor of The Telegraph, complaining about the noise pollution in your locality drawing the attention of the Government to take steps to check the same. Sign as Mohan/Anjali, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. zyxw wxyz 10" zyxw wxyz Against the said question''s answer, the petitioner was awarded 5 marks. Subsequently, the said 5 marks was enhanced to 6 marks by the scrutinizer, who awarded one more mark later, as reflected in the front page of the answer script. Sign as Mohan/Anjali, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. zyxw wxyz 10" zyxw wxyz Against the said question''s answer, the petitioner was awarded 5 marks. Subsequently, the said 5 marks was enhanced to 6 marks by the scrutinizer, who awarded one more mark later, as reflected in the front page of the answer script. In other words, in respect of the said Question No.4, the petitioner was awarded 6 marks out of 10 marks, which is more than what was initially given to her, i.e. 5 marks. zyxw 5. The aforesaid question is subjective one and as such, it may not be appropriate for this Court to assess whether she was given less mark or not as claimed by her. Moreover, as mentioned above, she was given one more mark than what was initially assigned to her by the evaluator and as such, this Court is of the view that this Court may not entertain this plea of the petitioner as far as the Question No. 4 is concerned. 6. As regards another question i.e., Question No.9, the question is as follows: wxyz "9. Rewrite any four of the sentences as directed: zyxw wxyz (a)This is one of the best colleges in the North. (Change it into comparative degree) zyxw wxyz (b) You are richer than I. (Make it negative without changing the meaning) zyxw wxyz (c) There is no smoke without fire. (Make it affirmative without changing the meaning) zyxw wxyz (d) We heard of her failure (Make it a complex sentence ) zyxw wxyz (e) He admitted that he had done wrong. (Make it a simple sentence) zyxw wxyz (f) Unless you work hard, you will fail. (Make it a compound sentence) zyxw wxyz The petitioner answered the Question No.9 (a) to 9 (c) & 9(f), as follows: zyxw wxyz "Ans. to Q No.9- zyxw wxyz (a) This is better than most other colleges in the North. zyxw wxyz (b) I am not as rich as you. zyxw wxyz (c) Where there is smoke, there is fire. zyxw wxyz (f) You must work hard or you will fail." zyxw 7. In respect of the aforesaid answers given, the petitioner has not been given any marks in respect of answer 9(b) and answer 9 (f). 8. zyxw wxyz (b) I am not as rich as you. zyxw wxyz (c) Where there is smoke, there is fire. zyxw wxyz (f) You must work hard or you will fail." zyxw 7. In respect of the aforesaid answers given, the petitioner has not been given any marks in respect of answer 9(b) and answer 9 (f). 8. Without expressing any opinion, this Court is of the view that perhaps the examiner could have awarded some marks in respect of the answers given to Questions 9(b) and 9(f). However, this Court also refrains from giving any opinion and would leave it to the authority concerned to re-examine whether the petitioner can be awarded marks in respect of the aforesaid Questions 9 (b) and 9 (f). 9. The observation of the Council, however, is that the Question No. 9 was based on grammar, but two question''s answers i.e. 9 (b) & 9 (f) given by the petitioner were wrong according to the instructions given to the Examiner by the Council and as it was found that the Examiner strictly followed the instructions of the Council, the re-checker did not find any necessity to increase the mark. 10. This Court is of the view that the answers to these questions can be more than one and if the answers given by the petitioner falls under any of the correct possible answers, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be given due credit for the correct answers if given. However, this Court does not wish to make any observation as to the correctness of the answers given by the petitioner in question 9(b) and 9(f) and would leave it to the Council to re-examine again as to whether the petitioner could be given any mark in respect of the aforesaid two answers in 9(b) & 9(f), if these are found to be possible correct answers. 11. As regards Question No.14, it has been submitted that the petitioner has already been given full marks for the answer given in the said question and as such, no further examination is required. 12. In respect of Question No.23 in Logic & Philosophy subject to which the petitioner thinks that she has been given less mark, the said question reads as follows: wxyz "23. Explain very briefly four advantages of experiment over observation. 12. In respect of Question No.23 in Logic & Philosophy subject to which the petitioner thinks that she has been given less mark, the said question reads as follows: wxyz "23. Explain very briefly four advantages of experiment over observation. 4" zyxw wxyz The answer given by the petitioner is as follows: zyxw wxyz "Ans. to question No.23 Four advantage of experiment over observation are as follows:- zyxw wxyz (i) An experiment can be repeated according to our necessity and it allows us to add as much instances as we need. zyxw wxyz (ii) Experiment enables us to illustrate a particular event from scientific point of view. zyxw wxyz (iii) Experiment enables us to isolate a particular thing. zyxw wxyz (iv) Experiment enables us to examine a particular event with calm and compose manner." zyxw 13. As regards this answer given by the petitioner, the petitioner was initially awarded 4 marks by the subject expert but subsequently, 2 marks were reduced. As regards this deduction in marks, the explanation given by the Council is based on the opinion given by the subject expert that the deduction of marks from 4 to 2 against the Question No. 23 of the subject of Logic and Philosophy was not done at the time of rechecking but it was done during the process of evaluation, scrutinisation and finalization. It has been further clarified that during the time of evaluation the subject expert verified the matter and the subject expert was convinced that the petitioner had written only the points and not the explanation and accordingly, the petitioner was awarded 2 marks because of not writing full and proper explanation as was asked in the Question No.23. 14. This Court has perused para-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 in which the procedure followed in evaluating the exam papers has been clearly mentioned. Para-5 is quoted below: wxyz "5. that with regard to the statement made in Paragraph-4 to the writ petition, the deponent states that the examiners are authorized persons to evaluate the answer scripts and only experienced teachers are appointed as examiners. A scripts after being evaluated by an examiner it is scrutinized by a more experienced scrutinizers under the supervision of a Head Examiner who himself scrutinizers a portion of the answer scripts. No doubt there may be variation in awarding marks from examiner to examiner. A scripts after being evaluated by an examiner it is scrutinized by a more experienced scrutinizers under the supervision of a Head Examiner who himself scrutinizers a portion of the answer scripts. No doubt there may be variation in awarding marks from examiner to examiner. No full proof methodology can be applied in the manner of examination of papers. The petitioner''s expectation to get rank is her own assessment of answer scripts. If such stand of the petitioner is to be scrutinized, there will be no end to such litigation. Some differences from examiner to examiner in the standards of making, since subjectivity cannot be overrules in manual evaluation. It is true that evaluation of two persons of same answer scripts cannot be equal on golden scales." zyxw 15. The aforesaid explanation is based on Regulation 29 of the Regulations for Conduct of Higher Secondary Examinations, which reads as follows: wxyz "29(iii) If a result of examination as aforesaid he finds any under-marking or over-marking in any paper he may add or deduct, as the case may be, such marks as he deems justified provided that total addition or deduction shall not exceed 10% of the total marks of the paper." zyxw 16. After perusal of the aforesaid Regulation as well as the explanation proffered by the Council, one may examine the duties of the scrutiniser which are provided under the Regulation 31 which reads as follows: wxyz "Duties of Scrutinisers: zyxw wxyz It shall be the duty of the scrutinizer to ensure that zyxw wxyz (i) the total number of questions answered does not exceed the number required to be answered, zyxw wxyz (ii) no answer has been marked twice, zyxw wxyz (iii) no extra answer has been taken into account, zyxw wxyz (iv) no answer has been given more marks than allotted to it, zyxw wxyz (v) no answer remains un-evaluated, zyxw wxyz (vi) there has been no mistake in the totaling, zyxw wxyz (vii) marks recorded inside the scripts are duly entered in the proforma in the front cover, zyxw wxyz (viii) marks in answer scripts tally with the marks in the mark-sheet, zyxw wxyz (ix) no mark is altered by him in any answer script and marksheets, zyxw wxyz (x) any discrepancy is brought to the notice of the Head Examiner/Chief Scrutiniser for necessary action. the scrutinizer shall do any other duties of like nature as may be allotted by the Head Examiner/Chief Scrutiniser. He shall maintain strict secrecy about his work." zyxw 17. The power given to the Scrutinisers, which is of relevance to us, is to be found at Regulation 31(iv), which provides that it is the duty of the scrutinizer to see that no answer has been given more marks than allotted to it. In the opinion of this Court, the marks allotted to it means the total marks allotted for that particular question i.e. in respect of Question No.23 i.e. 4 marks. In other words, if any examiner had given more marks than 4, which is the maximum mark, the scrutinizer would rectify it, but no power is given to the scrutinizer to reduce the marks already given by the examiner. That perhaps could be done only by the Head Examiner or Chief Scrutiniser as provided under the Regulation 29 of the Regulations. 18. However, in the present case, the Council has not specifically averred that the said reduction of marks from 4 to 2 in respect of answer given by the petitioner to Question No.23 was done by the Head Examiner/Chief Scrutiniser and the Scrutiniser could not have done it. If the said reduction was done by the scrutinizer from 4 marks to 2 marks that perhaps would be beyond his jurisdiction, which fact however is not clearly explained in the para-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Council referred to above. 19. In fact, with regard to the Question No.23, the explanation given by the Council is reflected in para-7 & 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which read as follows: wxyz "7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-6 to writ petition, the deponent denies the same and in t his connection the deponent states that the examiners concerned awarded marks to the petitioner against Q. No.4 & 9 of English and Q. No.23 of Logic & Philosophy as per her standard of answering, corrections etc. zyxw wxyz 8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-6 to writ petition, the deponent denies the same and in t his connection the deponent states that the examiners concerned awarded marks to the petitioner against Q. No.4 & 9 of English and Q. No.23 of Logic & Philosophy as per her standard of answering, corrections etc. zyxw wxyz 8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-7 to the writ petition, the deponent states that the petitioner could not write her application under Q. No.4 of English as expected by the examiner and in Q. No.9 of English the petitioner gave 2 (two) correct answers out of 4 (four) and accordingly, the examiner awarded marks to the petitioner. Likewise the petitioner could not answer properly against Q. No.23 of Logic & Philosophy and hence, she secured less marks." zyxw 20. Accordingly, as far as the issue raised by the petitioner as regards reevaluation in respect of Question No.23 of Logic & Philosophy subject is concerned, this Court would direct the Council authorities to ascertain as to who had reduced marks to 2 in place of 4 marks earlier awarded to the petitioner by the examiner. If it was done by the scrutinizer, he certainly did not have the authority to do so under the Regulation. If so, such reduction could not have been made by the Scrutinizer as it was only within the authority of the Head Examiner or Chief Scrutiniser as mentioned above, in which event she would have to be awarded 4 marks for the said question. 21. Accordingly, the Council will decide the issue in terms of the allotment of the marks to Question No. 23, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get 4 marks or not, which was initially given to her by the Examiner. 22. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the Council authority within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and it shall intimate the result thereof to the petitioner. 23. If in the aforesaid process, the petitioner gets more marks than what she was given, obviously necessary correctional measures shall be taken by the Council in all the relevant certificates/documents. However, it is made very clear that while undertaking the exercise referred to above, no reduction of marks will be permissible than already allotted to the petitioner. 23. If in the aforesaid process, the petitioner gets more marks than what she was given, obviously necessary correctional measures shall be taken by the Council in all the relevant certificates/documents. However, it is made very clear that while undertaking the exercise referred to above, no reduction of marks will be permissible than already allotted to the petitioner. 24. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.