Bombay High Court
Mr. Nilesh Gogri vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
jsn 1 21-wp-2770-2016.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2770 OF 2016
Mr. Nilesh Gogri
Age 47 yrs., Occ. Business,
Residing at 401, Neel Rashmi Apt,
Dominic Colony Rd. No.3,
Tank Road, Orlem,
Malad (W), Mumbai 64 .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Divisional Secretary
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
& Higher Secondary Education,
Mumbai Divisional Board, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 400 703 .... Respondents
Mr. Rahul A. Ranpise, Adv for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amey Jaiswal, i/b M/s. Little & Co. for the Respondents.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 6 JUNE 2017.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
PER RIYAZ I CHAGLA J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
jsn 2 21-wp-2770-2016.sxw
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner whose daughter Ms.
Yashvi Nilesh Gogri who undisputedly is a highly meritorious student
is knocking the doors of this Court seeking a relief of grant of one
mark to Question No.3, Sub Question 6, Sub Point (1) of subject
Science-I paper of S.C.C. Examination held in March 2016 by the the
Mumbai Divisional Board, Vashi of Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary & High Secondary Education.
3. In the S.S.C. examinations held in the month of March 2016 by
Respondent No.2, the Petitioner's daughter Yashvi had appeared. In
the result she secured 95% . She noticed that in Science-I paper, she
had been given less marks than her expectations and therefore she
applied for the photocopy of the sheets from the Respondent No.2.
After receipt of copy of answer sheet she noticed that so far as
question No.3 (6) (i) and 4 are concerned though the entire answers
given by her were correct her paper not been properly evaluated. She,
therefore, applied for evaluation. In the revaluation, the re-valuating
authority found that a mistake was committed in so far as question
No.4 is concerned and additional mark was given thereby increasing
the percentage of Petitioner's daughter from 95% to 95.20%.
jsn 3 21-wp-2770-2016.sxw
However, in so far as question No.3 (6) (i) is concerned, re-valuating
authority found no error and as such refused to interfere with marks
granted on the said question.
4. We are aware of the limitations in the writ jurisdiction. We are
equally aware that in the matter which is in the domain of expert
academicians we are required not to interfere with the wisdom of
experts.
5. However, we find that the present case is exception, wherein
interference in the extra-ordinary action be warranted. It will be
relevant to refer to question No.3 (6) (i):
(6). Suggest measures in the following situations.
(i) To avoid noise pollution in classroom.
6. In the answer sh eet the Petitioner has given the answer to the
said question as under :-
" i) To avoid noise pollution in classroom
(a) Appoint a prefect or a monitor;
jsn 4 21-wp-2770-2016.sxw
(b) Punish the children if they make noise;
(c) Give some work to children to occupy their time and
keep them busy."
7. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents submits that the answer given by the Petitioner's
daughter is not found to be correct since the model answer to the said
question is, "avoid to make a lot of noise, not to shout loudly."
8. We are of the considered view that Respondents have taken a
hyper-technical view of the matter. Merely because the model answer
states that the measures for avoiding noise pollution would be "not to
shout loudly" does not mean that the answer given by the Petitioner's
daughter is incorrect. On the contrary it can be seen that the Petitioner
has applied her mind in a far more pragmatic manner and has found
more than one measures to avoid noise pollution. We are of the
considered view that the Respondents rather than punishing the
Petitioner for this ingenuity, she ought to have appreciated her efforts
and specifically when as a matter of fact measures suggested by her
had a direct relation with the measure to control noise pollution.
jsn 5 21-wp-2770-2016.sxw
9. In that view of the matter we are of the considered view that the
Respondents have erred in taking a hyper-technical approach in
refusing to grant full mark to the Petitioner's daughter to the said
question. We find that the answer given by the Petitioner is correct
and deserves full marks.
10. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no
order as to costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
