Delhi High Court

Sujeet Kumar Yadav vs C.B.S.E. on 13 July, 2010

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                       Date of decision: 13th July, 2010.

                                   W.P.(C) No.4548/2010

%
         SUJEET KUMAR YADAV                                          ..... Petitioner
                     Through:                    Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav & Mr. Ram
                                                 Awadh Yadav, Advocates.

                                              versus

         C.B.S.E.                                                     ..... Respondent
                                   Through:        Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                        No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                 No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                      No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition for direction to the

respondent CBSE to scrutinize, re-evaluate, re-check the answer sheets of

the petitioner in the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance

Examination, 2010 conducted by the respondent CBSE. In the result

declared by the respondent CBSE, the petitioner has secured 334 out of 480

marks. The petitioner contends that if re-evaluation, re-scrutiny is ordered,

he is sure that he will secure better marks and consequently a better rank.

Upon representation of the petitioner to the respondent CBSE having met

with no success, the present petition was filed.

2. The Information Bulletin published by the respondent CBSE for the

said examination inter alia provides as under:-

"13.1 RULES FOR RE-CHECKING/RE-

EVALUATION OF ANSWER SHEETS.

The machine - gradable Answer Sheets are evaluated with extreme care and are repeatedly scrutinized. There is no provision for re-checking/re-evaluation or supply of photocopies of answer sheets for inspection to the candidates.

No correspondence in this regard will be entertained."

3. The petitioner in the petition has contended that the non-provision of

a mechanism by the respondent CBSE to look into the complaints of the

candidates is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the

Constitution and against the principles of natural justice. It is further

contended that the process of evaluation of the answer sheets is not

transparent and fair and is hit by the provisions of the Right to Information

Act. It is yet further contended that the respondent CBSE nowhere displayed

the correct answers and if the correct answers are displayed, the examinees

would have a way of knowing the selection criteria. It is contended that the

petitioner has scored 72% marks in High School Examination and 79%

marks in Intermediate Examination (U.P. Board) and expected to score

higher than 334 marks declared to have been secured by him.

4. From the pleadings of the petitioner, the case made out is merely of

expectation of higher marks/better results. The averments of the petitioner

are in the nature of a roving and fishing inquiry. The petitioner has not given

any basis whatsoever for his expectation of higher marks/better results.

5. The counsel for the respondent CBSE appearing on advance notice

has urged that the matter is no longer res integra. Reliance in this regard is

placed on:-

i. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher

Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth

AIR 1984 SC 1543 upholding the validity of the clause

prohibiting disclosure and inspection of the answer books

and as to their confidentiality and holding that it is not

within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine

whether the purpose of a statute can be served better by

adopting any Policy different from what has been laid down

by the legislature or its delegatee and refusing to strike

down as unreasonable a Bye-Law merely on the ground that

the Policy enunciated therein does not meet with the

approval of the Court. The argument of fair play requiring

such disclosure was also rejected and it was held that if it is

found that every possible precaution has been taken and all

necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer

books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so

as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and

that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying

uniform standards with checks and crosschecks at different

stages and that measures for detection of malpractice, etc.

have also been effectively adopted, it will not be correct on

the part of the Courts to strike down the provision

prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the

rules of fair play. Similarly, the argument of public interest

was also not accepted;

ii. Parents Forum for Meaningful Education Vs. CBSE AIR

1994 Delhi 44 where the Division Bench of this Court laid

down that the setting of the question papers in the

examination and the evaluation of the answers is the

prerogative of the examining body and it is not advisable for

Court to interfere therein. It is informed that the Supreme

Court in SLP preferred by the CBSE against the said

judgment, vide order dated 5th November, 1993 set aside the

direction of the Division Bench of this Court to the CBSE to

introduce the system of revaluation;

iii. Order dated 5th November, 1993 of the Supreme Court in

SLP (C) No.17165/1993 titled CBSE Vs. Parents forum for

Meaningful Education laying down that no direction can

be given to the Board to introduce the system of re-

evaluation;

iv. Parents Forum for Meaningful Education Vs. CBSE being

C.W.P. No.1824/1997 decided on 19th December, 2001

where again the Division Bench of this Court held that this

Court would not interfere with the policy decision taken by

the State, far less in relation to the Education Policy which

has been evolved by experts. It was however held that the

question of re-evaluation and the right of the student to have

a look at the answer sheets has been settled in previous

litigations listed in the said judgment.

v. Order dated 8th July, 2002 of the Supreme Court in SLP (C)

No.10128/2002 titled Parents Forum for Meaningful

Education Vs. CBSE dismissing the appeal against the

order of the Division Bench aforesaid declining the grant of

relief of re-evaluation.

vi. Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public

Service Commission AIR 2004 SC 4116 laying down that in

the absence of any provisions in the rules for re-evaluation

of the answer books, no candidate would have a right to

seek re-evaluation of answer books;

vii. Judgment dated 6th August, 2004 of the Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.(C) No.10374/2004 titled Nirbhesh Saxena

Vs. CBSE & other writ petitions where inspite of numerous

errors/irregularities having been cited, reliefs as in the

present petition were still declined;

viii. Order dated 18th July, 2006 in W.P.(C) No.10984/2006

titled Akasksha Jain Vs. The Secretary, CBSE holding that

in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 in

certain given circumstances where ex facie fraud or large

scale irregularity is made out, the Court may entertain

petitions with a view to satisfy itself whether the results or

the process in given cases has been done correctly but in the

absence of any visible manageable standards it would be

hazardous for the Court to indicate to the Board to put into

place a mechanism of re-evaluation. The Court nevertheless

did notice that denial of re-evaluation was harsh;

ix. The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary

Education Vs. Ayan Das AIR 2007 SC 3098 laying down

that direction to produce answer paper for inspection by

examinee should not normally be passed;

x. Order dated 10th July, 2008 of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.4645/2008 titled Rinith Anand Vs. CBSE;

xi. Order dated 8th August, 2008 of this Court in LPA

No.451/2008 titled Rinith Anand Vs. CBSE dismissing the

appeal against the order of the Single Judge (supra)

declining the grant of relief of re-evaluation;

xii. Order dated 1st October, 2008 of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.5575/2008 titled Nishant Deengawal Vs. CBSE;

xiii. Order dated 25th May, 2010 of the Supreme Court in H.P.

Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur laying

down that it is not permissible for High Court to examine

the question paper and answer sheets itself and reiterating

the view in the judgments aforesaid of the Apex Court.

xiv. Order dated 9th June, 2010 of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.4034/2010 titled Rao Siddhant Yadav Vs. CBSE;

All to the same effect.

5. The only ground urged by the petitioner for seeking re-evaluation is

his past record and his expectation of high marks. The same in my opinion

cannot form the basis for seeking the directions sought. A mere expectation

of a higher better marks/result would not entitle the Court to go contrary to

the grain of the aforesaid judgments. The Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Mohan

Lal Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 held "it is not expedient to extend the horizon

of natural justice in the audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of

mere expectations, however great they might be". The petitioner has neither

alleged nor shown any irregularity in the conduct of examination or any of

the Rules providing various checks and crosschecks having not been

followed. If reason as given is to be accepted, there would be a spate of

petitions and the Courts would be inundated with each student wanting to