Delhi High Court
Parul Sarwal & Kshitij Aggarwal vs C.B.S.E. & Others on 7 August, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
7 & 8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9661/2009
Date of decision: 7th August, 2009
PARUL SARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salar M. Khan, Advocate.
versus
C.B.S.E. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 along with Mr. Sanyam Bhardwaj,
Deputy Secretary(CBSE).
+ W.P.(C) 9662/2009
KSHITIJ AGGARWAL MINOR THR. HIS FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN DR. VINEY KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salar M. Khan, Advocate.
versus
C.B.S.E. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 along with Mr. Sanyam Bhardwaj,
Deputy Secretary(CBSE).
Mr. R.N. Singh & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates for
respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 1
2. Original answer sheets have been produced in the Court today and
have been examined. The answer sheets do not reveal any calculation
mistake, failure to mark or allot marks to answers.
3. The respondents have followed a system under which each answer
sheet consisting of two papers is examined by two examiners in their
respective subjects and then checked by two head/examiners or additional
head examiner. The answer sheets reveal that the head examiner/
additional head examiner had in fact gone through the answer sheets.
4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have explained the entire
system of marking/evaluation of AIPMT (Final) answer books. It is stated
that in each of the four subjects, viz., Physics and Chemistry (Paper-I) and
Botany and Zoology (Paper-II), two Head Examiners are appointed, i.e.,
total eight Head Examiners. Under the team of two Head Examiners,
Additional Head Examiners are appointed for the purpose of evaluation.
Normally, 8 to 12 Additional Head Examiners are appointed in each
subject. There are six examiners under each Head Examiner. One day
prior to commencement of the evaluation, all the Head Examiners and
Additional Head Examiners discuss the question papers subject wise. Spot
evaluation is done at AIPMT. On the date of evaluation, each Additional
Head Examiner deliberates upon the question paper with the Evaluator in
the first half. Sample paper books are given to each evaluator for marking
and these answer books are checked by Evaluators and cross checked by
W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 2
Additional Head Examiners. In case of difficulty, Additional Head
Examiners discuss the problem with the Head Examiners. Tests checks
are undertaken and in case it is found that evaluation by any examiner is
not up to the required standard, the duty assigned is withdrawn. After
evaluation process in both subjects is complete, all answer books are given
to a group of experts for scrutiny. In the scrutiny, four Additional Head
Examiners of concerned subjects are appointed and about 30-40 experts in
a subject work as Scrutinizers under the supervision of Additional Head
Examiners. During the scrutiny process, several aspects like whether all
questions have been evaluated, whether there is a totaling mistake,
whether the marks have been correctly carried forward to the first page,
etc. are examined.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, I do not think any direction can be
issued for re-evaluation of the mark sheets in the case of the petitioners
specially when there was a specific term in Clause 13.1 of the Information
Bulletin, which states that there is no provision for re-checking/re-
evaluation or supply photocopy of the answer sheets or answer books for
inspection to the candidates. My attention in this regard is also drawn to
decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 10374/2004 titled Nirbhesh Saxena
versus Central Board of Secondary Education and other cases in
which similar request was turned down by a detailed order and the writ
petitions were dismissed. In this case, the Court had examined whether a
W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 3
candidate/student has right to re-evaluation and whether denial of the said
right violates freedom of speech and expression or right to information.
The said contention was rejected. This decision was followed in W.P. (C)
No. 10984/2006 titled Ms. Akanksha Jain versus The Secretary,
Central Board of Secondary Education and other cases.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
7. The answer sheets have been returned to the counsel for the
respondent-CBSE. There will be no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 07, 2009
VKR
W.P. Nos. 9661-9662/2009 Page 4
