Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4926 of 2006
PETITIONER:
The President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr
RESPONDENT:
D. Suvankar & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/11/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No.17990 of 2005)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a
Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. While holding that
there was no provision under any rule or regulations of the
Appellant-Board for revaluation, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was
awarded for wrong intimation about the total marks actually
received by the respondent No.1.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent No.1 appeared at the High School Certificate
Examination\0262004 conducted by the appellant-board. Result
of the said examination was published on 25.6.2004. Initially,
respondent no.1 was declared to have passed in the 1st
Division securing 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent
no.1 made a representation pointing out that the marks
appear to have been wrongly mentioned in the marks sheet.
Answer scripts were verified, and it was found that the marks
awarded in one paper i.e. SSH were wrongly shown as 35
though respondent no.1 had really secured 65 marks. It was
pointed out that the mistake occurred due to the wrong entry
made in the computer. The error was rectified in the
Tabulation Register and fresh marks sheet was issued on
7.7.2004. The revised marks sheet was sent to the Zonal
Officer, at Balasore for onward transmission to the
Headmaster, N.S. Police High School where the petitioner had
prosecuted studies. In September, 2004 respondent no.1 filed
writ petition. It is to be noted that Board had constituted a
Committee pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya
Mohanty’s case (supra). The cut off mark was fixed at 682.
As at that time the respondent no.1’s marks were taken to be
654, his papers were not examined by the Committee. As the
candidate had deposited requisite fees for checking of addition
of marks, the exercise was undertaken and it was noted that
in the SSH paper he had secured 71 and not 65 as was posted
in the cover page. In other words, the actual marks secured
by the candidate were 690 and not 654 as was originally
recorded.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that
there is no scope for revaluation but directed payment of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Rs.20,000/- for the negligence of the Board. Main prayer in
the writ petition was to direct the appellant-Board to revalue
answer sheet as was done in the case of candidates who had
secured more than 682 marks. Earlier the High Court in the
case of Bismaya Mohanty & Ors. v. Board of Secondary
Education, Orissa represented by its Secretary and Ors.
(1996 (1) OLR 134) had directed that the answer sheet of the
students who had secured more than particular number of
marks were to be re-examined by the Committee of three
examiners to avoid the possibility of injustice on account of
marginal variation in marks, considering power given to Chief
Examiners in certain specified cases.
The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As
observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v.
Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth. etc. (AIR 1984 SC 1543), it is
in the public interest that the results Public examinations
when published should have some finality attached to them. If
inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and
revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross
and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the
relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter
confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time
involved in the process. The Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise,
prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in
preference to those formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day
working of educational institutions and the departments
controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to
make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the
problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities end
grass root problems involved in the working of the system and
unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a
purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one were to be
propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how
far the Board has assured a zero defect system of evaluation,
or a system which is almost fool-proof.
Award of marks by an Examiner is to be fair, and
considering the fact that revaluation is not permissible under
the Statute, the Examiner has to be careful, cautious and has
a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No
element of chance or luck should be introduced. An
examination is a stepping-stone on career advancement of a
student. Absence of a provision for revaluation cannot be a
shield for the Examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer
script. That would be against the very concept for which
revaluation is impermissible.
The learned counsel for the Board has stated that due
proper care is taken in the matter of selection of Examiners.
Procedure followed by the Board was stated to be as follows:
Names of teachers teaching different subjects are
obtained from the schools in a prescribed form named
Teachers Index Form. The data supplied by the schools in the
Teachers Index Form are entered in the Computer. Circle-
wise/subject-wise seniority list of Chief Examiners/ Assistant
Examiners/Scrutinisers is prepared. After the Unit Chart of
the valuation centre is finalised, allotment of Chief
Examiner/Asst. Examiner/Scrutiniser made by the Computer
basing on the guidelines framed by the Examination
Committee, keeping in view the distance of schools from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
valuation centre. After selection of Examiners, the Computer
print of the subject-wise and Unit-wise list of Chief
Examiners/Asst. Examiners and Scrutinisers is finalised, and
thereafter the appointment orders are issued. Criteria fixed
are stated to be as follows:
(i) Minimum teaching experience for Chief Examiners
and Asst. Examiners is stipulated.
(ii) Chief Examiners are appointed on rotation and Asst.
Examiners on seniority basis.
(iii) In case of shortage, the experience restriction can be
relaxed.
(iv) Scruitnisers are appointed from among the subject-
teachers with particular years of teaching
experience.
It has to be ensured that the Examiners who make the
valuation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The
paramount consideration in such cases is the ability of the
Examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such
persons as Examiners who have the capacity, capability to
make valuation and they should really equipped for the job.
Otherwise, the very purpose of evaluation of answer papers
would be frustrated. Nothing should be left to show even an
apprehension about lack of fair assessment. It is true that
valuation of two persons cannot be equal on golden scales,
but wide variation would affect credibility of the system of
valuation. If for the same answer one candidate gets higher
marks than another that would be arbitrary. As indicated
above, the scope for interference in matters of valuation of
answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and
apparent infirmity in valuation, the Court step in. Care should
be taken to see that the Examiners who have been appointed
for a particular subject belong to the same faculty. It would be
a mockery of the system of valuation of a teacher belonging to
Arts stream is asked to evaluate answer papers of Science
stream. It may be that a teacher had Physics. Chemistry or
Biology at the Intermediate Level, but at Graduation stage he
had special paper in Zoology. To ask such a teacher to
evaluate Botany paper would not be proper. Similarly in the
case of a teacher having Mathematics in Intermediate Level
while he took his high studies in Physics, or Chemistry, or
Botany at the Graduation Level, evaluation of answer paper in
Mathematics by him would not be proper. May be that he has
working knowledge in the subject. But the valuation should be
done by an Examiner who is well equipped in the subject.
That would rule out the chance of variation improper
valuation. Board authorities should ensure that anomalous
situations as pointed out above do not occur. Additional steps
should be taken for assessing the capacity of a teacher before
he is appointed as an Examiner. For this purpose, the Board
may constitute a Body of Experts to interview the persons who
intend to be appointed as Examiners. This process is certainly
time-consuming but it would further the ends for which the
examinations are held. The Chief Examiner is supposed to act
as a safety-valve in the matter of proper assessment.
One thing which cannot be lost sight of is the marginal
difference of marks which decide the placement of candidates
in the merit list.
The High Court in another case has directed that answer
scripts of all the candidates who had secured more than 90%
of marks should be re-checked. The said decision of the High
Court was assailed before this Court in Board of Secondary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr. Civil Appeal
Nos.5413-5414 of 2004. This Court by order dated 13.8.2004
held that since there is no provision for re-valuation, the High
Court’s direction was not sustainable.
In the instant case the High Court was of the view that
the earlier view in Bismaya Mohanty’s case (supra) was not
approved by this Court in said Civil Appeals.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant-Board
the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition
rejecting the prayer of the respondent no.1 for re-valuation.
Having held that the writ petition was to be dismissed the
imposition of cost for initial mistake which was later rectified
is clearly impermissible.
By order dated 5.9.2005 by issuing notice it was directed
that the Computer Firm and the Assistant Examiner and the
Scrutinizer who were responsible for wrong entry of the marks
were to be noticed. Stand of the computer firm was that since
entries were made for several lakhs of students, mistake of
this nature should not be given importance.
It is not in dispute that the Board’s regulations do not
provide for any revaluation. What is provided is for the
addition of the marks. The Board had set up a Committee
pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya Mohanty’s case
(supra). Initially, candidate’s case was not covered. But on
account of corrections his case was to be considered. His total
marks were 690, whereas the cut off marks fixed by the Board
were 682.
The appellant-Board is certainly not blemishless.
Undisputedly, lesser marks were shown in the marks sheet
supplied to the respondent no.1. In the first marks sheet the
total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marks sheet was
issued showing the aggregate marks to be 690. Except
putting the blame on the Computer Firm, Assistant Examiner
and the Scrutinizer, nothing further has been offered by the
appellant-Board as explanation. True it is the first mistake
was of the computer firm but the second correction is clearly
on the basis of the prayer for re-addition of marks. It was
found that the marks actually secured were 71 while on the
cover page of the answer sheet the marks noted as 65. For
this the blame has to be fixed on the Assistant Examiner and
the Scrutinizer. But that does not provide an escape route to
the Board.
Ultimately, it is the Board which has to ensure that the
correct marks sheet is issued to the candidates since
candidates who appear at the High School Certificate are of
tender age. If by mistake the Board indicates to the
candidates’ incorrect marks, it is bound to have adverse effect
on the mind of the candidates of tender age. Therefore, it is
imperative on the part of the Board to ensure that errorless
marks sheet is issued to each candidate. The plea of the
computer firm that considering the large number of
candidates the mistake is not serious has no substance. The
computer entries are made to ensure accuracy and to do away
with defects which arise from manually recording of marks
and to ensure accuracy. The Assistant Examiner and the
Scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually
unmindful of the consequences which result from their
negligence acts. Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- has to be
paid to the respondent no.1 by the Board out of which it shall
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
recover Rs.15,000/- from computer firm. It appears that the
Board has taken action against the Assistant Examiner and
Scrutinizer for their negligence. While affirming action taken
against them, we express our displeasure for their careless
and negligent acts which has led to unnecessary litigation.
The High Court has erroneously held that this Court did
not approve the directions given in Bismaya Mohanty’s case
(supra). It is to be noted that in Civil Appeal Nos.5413-5414
of 2004, the correctness of the decision in Bismaya Mohanty’s
case (supra) was not under consideration. The High Court in
the impugned judgment in the said case had departed from
the directions given in the Bismaya Mohanty’s case (supra)
and in that background this Court set aside the order of the
High Court. No opinion was expressed about the correctness
of the decision in Bismaya Mohanty’s case (supra).
Additionally, the Board itself on the basis of said decision had
constituted the Committee in the year under consideration.
Though on the basis of marks secured by him (i.e. 690)
respondent no.1’s case ought to have been considered by the
Committee, we feel no useful purpose shall be served by giving
direction to do so at the present juncture.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.