Delhi High Court
Animesh vs The Central Board Of Secondary ... on 7 December, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7thDecember, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10182/2018 & CM APPL. 39661/2018
ANIMESH . .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Adv.
versus
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Adv. with
Ms. Seema Dolo, Adv. for CBSE
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
% J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition relates to the Economics paper given
by the petitioner in his 12th class, under the aegis of the Central Board
of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as "the CBSE").
2. The paper carried 100 marks, divided into two parts, 80% being
allotted for written examination and 20% for practical.
3. Para 5 (a) of the writ petition, sets out the petitioner‟s specific
grievance, which relates to the marks allotted to him against eight of
the questions attempted by him, in the following words:
"That the petitioner had appeared at Delhi in class-XII CBSE,
Examination, 2018 with Economics as a subject and Roll
No.916935. The paper in Economics carried 100 marks
W.P.(C) 10182/2018 Page 1 of 6
divided into two parts namely, written and practical of 80 and
20 marks respectively. The petitioner obtained 66 marks in
the written paper and is dissatisfied with the marks allotted to
questions „8‟, „10‟, „12‟, „20‟ „17‟, „19‟, „23‟ & „24‟. The
question paper (Annexure P1) itself provides for instructions
to write answers to the point and within the limited words.
The answer sheet (Annexure P2) provided to the petitioner
through the medium of RTI application justify the contentions
of the petitioner. The evaluator, while checking the answer
sheet has not stuck to the ill instructions and has given marks
generally to the answers. At the same time, he has not given
full marks to answers which deserved them."
4. As a result of having, as he perceives, not been awarded proper
marks against the above eight questions, the writ petition avers, that
the petitioner could not get admission to the course and college of his
choice.
5. The writ petition, therefore, prays for issuance of a writ of
mandamus, directing the CBSE to get the petitioner‟s answer-sheet
checked/evaluated by an expert or by a body of experts, and to allot
proper marks to the answers given by the petitioner in the
abovementioned examination.
6. Mr. Sharma, ventilating the cause of the petitioner, draws my
attention to Instructions Nos. 4 and 7 of the General Instructions
constituting the marking scheme for the Economics paper given by the
petitioner. The said clauses read thus:
"4. Please examine each part of a question carefully and
allocate the marks allotted for the part as given in the
'Marking Scheme' below. TOTAL MARKS FOR ANY
W.P.(C) 10182/2018 Page 2 of 6
ANSWER MAY BE PUT IN A CIRCLE ON THE LEFT
SIDE WHERE THE ANSWER ENDS.
7. For mere arithmetical errors, there should be minimal
deduction. Only ½ mark should be deducted for such an
error."
7. Mr. Sharma would seek to submit, by comparing the expected
answers, suggested by the CBSE against the eight questions, with the
answers actually given by his client, that the examiner has awarded
lesser marks to his client than were deserved by him. He points out
that, in the answer-sheet, the examiner has awarded, omnibus marks
against the answers, without specifying the marks against each of the
parts in each of the answers.
8. For example, in reference to question no. 8, Mr. Sharma points
out that the suggested answer had four parts, each part of which
carried one mark. His submission is that the answer given by his client
contained the said four parts but, nevertheless, the examiner awarded
only three marks.
9. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the CBSE, points out
that, vide notice no. CBSE/Coord/2018/F.11, dated 31st May, 2018,
issued by the CBSE, candidates were permitted to apply for re-
evaluation of the answer-sheet, but that the petitioner himself did not
apply for re-evaluation.
10. Mr. Sharma submits that his client should be permitted, even at
this stage, to apply for re-evaluation.
W.P.(C) 10182/2018 Page 3 of 6
11. In my opinion, as the time for seeking re-evaluation has expired
long ago, it is not possible to permit such an exercise, at this stage.
12. The record discloses that, against an application submitted by
the petitioner, the CBSE responded by stating that there was "no
mistake" found in the paper by the examiner, though Mr. Bansal
would submit, however, his instructions are that the petitioner had not
applied for re-evaluation at all, but only applied for re-verification of
marks, as contained in clause 1 of the circular.
13. Be that as it may, I have, in the interests of justice, also
considered the submissions of Mr. Sharma on merits.
14. I am not able to subscribe to the interpretation, placed by Mr.
Sharma, on clause 4 of the General Instructions, governing the
valuation of the answer-sheet in the Economics paper. As I
understand, the said clause is in the nature of a guideline to be borne
in mind, by the examiner, while apportioning marks to the various
answers given by the candidates, and is intended, obviously, to avoid
subjectivity and promote objectivity, in the allocation of marks. For
example, with reference to question no.8, which carried five marks,
rather than dealing with leaving the mode of marking of answers
entirely to the discretion of the examiner, the instructions suggested
four components which were required to be contained in the answer,
and allotted one mark for each of the components/parts. This,
obviously, was intended to guide the examiner, who, while marking
the said question, was expected to assess whether the said four
W.P.(C) 10182/2018 Page 4 of 6
components/parts figured in the answer provided by the candidates
and, if they did, to allot one mark to each such component/part.
15. The instruction does not, however, require, anywhere, that the
allocation of marks against each such component/part should be
reflected in the answer-sheet.
16. As such, it cannot be said, in my view, that in noting, against
each answer of the petitioner, only the total marks awarded by him
therefor, the examiner acted in violation of the applicable instructions.
17. Once it is found that the examiner has not contravened the
instructions, regarding the manner of awarding marks, the jurisdiction
of this Court stands foreclosed.
18. It is outside of province of judicial review, in such cases, for
this Court to embark into a comparison of the suggested answers to
the answers provided by the candidates, and second-guess the marks
awarded against the answers by the examiner.
19. Any such attempt would amount to this Court sitting as a re-
evaluating authority, which, in my view, the law does not permit. That
no vested rights to re-evaluation exists in any candidates, is a position
that has been reiterated in several decisions including Ran Vijay
Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 and U.P.P.S.C. v. Rahul
Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 609.
W.P.(C) 10182/2018 Page 5 of 6
20. In that view of the matter, I am unable to subscribe to the
submission, of the petitioner, that the Economics paper given by him
requires to be re-evaluated by any independent examiner.
21. For all the above reasons, I am of the view that no case is made
out for directing re-evaluation of the petitioner‟s Economics answer-
sheet by any independent examiner, as prayed in the writ petition.
22. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2018
dsn
