Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
West Bengal Board Of Secondary ... vs Md. Arshad & Ors on 4 January, 2021
16 MAT 686 of 2020
04-01-2021
sg
With
CAN 1 of 2020
Ct. 12
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Versus
Md. Arshad & Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Adv.
...for the appellants
Mr. Debabrata Saha Ray, Adv.
Mr. Subhankar Das, Adv.
Mr. Neil Basu, Adv.
...for the writ petitioner
This appeal is directed against an order dated 21 st September,
2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ application filed by
a successful candidate for re-examination for post publication review
of his answer scripts of Madhyamik Pariksha, 2020 conducted by the
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
The writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge
that the prayer for post-publication review was denied on the basis of
a Circular dated 1st July, 2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary
(Examination), West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The
said Circular prohibits re-assessment and/or post publication review
of the answer scripts of a successful candidate.
It is important to note that Rule 14 of West Bengal Board of
Secondary Education (Examination) Regulation, 2001 clearly
prohibits re-examination of answer scripts of a successful candidate.
The only right that a successful candidate may have is to apply for
scrutiny. Scrutiny as defined in the said Regulations means checking
correctness of the total marks awarded, unmarked portion if any and
correctness of transcription of marks in theoretical papers only. The
learned Single Judge seems to have been overlooked Rule 14 of the
Examination Regulations and proceeded on the basis that there is no
intelligible differentia between a successful and an unsuccessful
candidate seeking re-examination of the answer scripts.
Rule 14 of the Examination Regulation is reproduced as below:
14. Provision for re-examination and scrutiny. - (1) A
successful candidate may apply for scrutiny within 30 days
from the date of publication of the result through the Head of
his institution for one or more answer paper (s) of the
particular examination on payment of a fee prescribed by the
Board expressly stating that the same is being paid for the
purpose of scrutiny. The President may extend the date of
submission of application for post-publication scrutiny, if
necessary.
(2) An unsuccessful candidate may apply for re-
examination within 30 days from the date of publication of
result through the Head of his institution for one or more
answer paper (s) of the particular examination on payment of
a fee prescribed by the Board expressly stating that the same is
being paid for the purpose of re-examination. The President
may extend the date of submission of application for post-
publication re-examination, if necessary.
(3) An incomplete or erroneous application for post-
publication scrutiny or re-examination shall be summarily
rejected, and no correspondence shall be entertained in that
behalf.
(4) The work of scrutiny shall be confined to checking
correctness of the total marks awarded, unmarked portion if
any, and correctness of transcription of marks in theoretical
papers only. It shall not involve re-examination that is, a fresh
valuation of answer. In case of re-examination, the script will
be re-assessed. Neither the candidate nor any one on his
behalf shall be entitled to be present during scrutiny/re-
examination or shall have any right to inspect the answer
script.
(5) It shall be obligatory on the part of a candidate
applying for post-publication scrutiny/re-examination to
accept the alternations in marks, if any, after scrutiny.
(6) Application for post-publication scrutiny/re-
examination shall not ensure result of such scrutiny before the
date fixed for submitting application for next examination, and
unsuccessful candidates shall, in their own interest, submit
application form for enrolment of the next examination within
the dates specified.
(7) The result of the post-publication scrutiny/re-
examination shall be intimated to the candidate concerned
through the institution."
In fact, the said judgment has rewritten the Regulations by
giving same meaning to the word "scrutiny" as that of re-assessment
of answer scripts. While anxiety of a student to strive his excellence
and being unhappy with the marks obtained in the examination giving
an expectation for a better mark of re-examination is well-appreciated
but unless Rule 14 is suitably amended and/or modified an/or declared
ultra vires, the Court is bound to follow the said Regulations.
Moreover, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 357 in laying
down the principles to be followed with regard to re-evaluation of
answer scripts, it has been clearly stated in paragraphs 30.1 and 30.2
that such a course of re-evaluation and re-examination of the answer
scripts have not provided in the statute or Rule or Regulation
governing an examination, the Court cannot direct re-examination of
the answer scripts de-hors such statute or Rules or Regulations as the
case may be.
It also seems that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice
that no challenge was thrown to Rule 14 of the Examination
Regulations and accordingly, his finding that there is no intelligible
differentia between the successful and unsuccessful candidates vis-à-
vis their rights to seek re-examination was beyond the scope of writ
petition.
On such consideration, we set aside the order under appeal.
The impugned order is set aside. The appeal succeeds.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Accordingly, MAT 686 of 2020 and CAN 1 of 2020 are
disposed of.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
