Dilara Parvin Ali vs Secretary, Cbse & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2589 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                       W.P.(C) No.3267/2011

%                            Judgment delivered on: 13th May, 2011


Dilara Parvin Ali                           ...... Petitioner.

                        Through: Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv.
                             versus

Secretary, CBSE & Ors.                      ..... Respondents

                        Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?                Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
       in the Digest?


KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral

*

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct

the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the

petitioner who had appeared in All India PMT/PDT Entrance

Examination 2011 held on 3rd April, 2011 and upon re-

evaluation of the answer sheets declare the petitioner to have

qualified for the final examination after making necessary

corrections in her result.

2. Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner very

forcefully submits that here is a case of a student who comes

from a very small city of West Bengal having confidence that

she must have scored not less than 647 marks out of the total

marks of 800 in the said examination. Counsel submits that

the evaluation of the answer sheets is carried through

machine gradable and the result of the students can vary due

to some technical snag in the said mechanical process.

Counsel also submits that Rule 13.1 of the Prospectus is not

only vague but is unilateral and without any rationale.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner has a legal right

to at least ask for re-evaluation of her answer sheets as a

student is legitimately expected to know that her answer

sheets have been fairly inspected. Counsel further submits

that if the answer sheets of the petitioner are not re-

evaluated then the petitioner will suffer great prejudice of

losing one precious academic year.

3. Opposing the present petition, Mr.Atul Kumar

learned counsel for the respondents submits that almost 10 lac

students had appeared in the said examination and the

mechanism of checking the answer sheets through machine

gradable is in vogue since 1987 and the system is

absolutely flawless without any complaint. Counsel also

submits that the answer sheets of the students are repeatedly

checked by different agencies and therefore, there is no room

for any mistake or technical snag in the said process

involved for evaluating the answer sheets. Counsel for the

respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this

court in Sujeet Kumar Yadav Vs. CBSE, W.P.(C) No.

4548/2010 decided on 13.7.2010.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner herein is a disheartened student who

after appearing in the All India PMT/PDT Examination 2011

did not make it to the merit list. Being confident of her

performance she anticipated clearing the said examination,

and was shocked to face the bitter reality of not clearing the

exam and thus has approached this court for seeking re-

evaluation of her answer sheet.

6. Here in the present case it is not in dispute that the

rules in place in the prospectus do not provide for re-

evaluation. For better appreciation the said rule is reproduced

as under:

"13.1 RULES FOR RE-CHECKING/RE-

EVALUTION 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 photo copies of answer sheets for inspection to the candidates.

No correspondence in this regard will be entertained. "

7. As per the counsel for the respondent, almost 10

lac students had appeared in the said examination and those

who have scored more than 50% marks are eligible to

appear in the final examination in unreserved category.

Counsel has also taken a stand that the said process of

checking the answer sheets through machine gradable is in

vogue since 1987 in the examination where there is high

participation of candidates and that is the reason the

answer sheets are evaluated through mechanical process i.e.

machine gradable. Had there been any technical snag or

mechanical failure in the said process then not only the

petitioner but many candidates would have raised the

grievance. No doubt the students having high academic

records sometimes do feel that their answer sheets are not

properly evaluated but the students themselves cannot be

the deciding authority of their own merit as their merit

through their answer sheets is left to be checked by the

experts. In the said clause 13.1 of the Rules it has been

clearly mentioned that the answer sheets are evaluated with

extreme care and properly scrutinized, therefore, there is no

reason to disbelieve that the respondents do not

scrupulously undertake the said process of taking care in

evaluating the answer sheets.

8. This court in the case of Adha Srujana vs Union

Of India WPC 3807/2010 in order dated 2.72010 had

dismissed the petition wherein in case of IIT-JEE examination

the petitioner sought re-evaluation of her answer sheets.

Again, in the decision of Sujeet Kumar (supra) dated

13.7.2010, this court after referring to many judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court and this court as well, arrived at the

decision that expectation of securing high marks cannot be the

basis for seeking directions for re-evaluation and thus

dismissed the petition seeking re-evaluation. In Parents

Forum for Meaningful Education Vs. CBSE AIR 1994

Delhi 44, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down that

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. In

the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman,

Bihar Public Service Commission AIR 2004 SC 4116 , the

Hon'ble Supreme Court denied the right to a candidate to

seek re-evaluation of the answer sheets because there being

no such rules laid down for re-evaluation of the answer

sheets.

9. Entrance examinations for various professional

courses are taken by lakhs of students today for which a

foolproof system of marking has been devised. Having good

academic records throughout does not guarantee the passing

of competitive examinations as careers of many are made and

marred by atomic difference in marks secured in these

entrance examinations. If the courts start passing orders

against the specific rules promulgated by the respondents,

based on the sympathy for the crestfallen students it will

certainly lead to setting a malefic precedent .

10. In the light of the above discussion and the legal

position settled above by Sujeet Kumar's case, this court does

not find merit in the present petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

May 13, 2011                        KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
mg