Delhi High Court
Aarushi Goyal vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 9 February, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision-09.02.2018
+ W.P.(C) 8552/2017 & C.M.No.35212/2017(interim direction)
AARUSHI GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Khagesh B.Jha, Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Bansal with Ms.Seema
Dolo, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner who is a commerce
student having appeared in the Class XII, Board examination
conducted by the respondent/CBSE in March 2017 seeks a direction to
the respondent to re-evaluate her answer-sheets of 'Economics' and
'English Core' in a proper manner. The petitioner has also prayed for
a photocopy of the re-evaluated answer-sheets after proper re-
evaluation.
2. The claim as set out in the petition is that when the results of the
aforesaid examination were declared, she realised that she had not
been given the requisite marks in the aforesaid two subjects and,
therefore, she applied to the respondent to supply a copy of her
answer-sheets.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent
had initially only supplied a copy of the 'Economics' answer-sheet to
the petitioner and he was, therefore, compelled to make an
impleadment application in a pending writ petition being
W.P.(C)No.5540/2017, which was allowed with following directions:-
" (i) Subject to the applicant making an application
seeking photocopies of the answer-sheets within one
week, the respondents shall within one week from
the date of such application, furnish the photocopies
of the answer-sheets to the applicant."
4. The petitioner was thereafter supplied with a copy of her
answer-sheets of 'English Core' also whereafter she submitted an
application for re-evaluation of her answer-sheets in the aforesaid two
subjects. The admitted case of the parties is that the re-evaluation has
been done and the marks of the petitioner had increased in one subject
i.e. 'Economics' by two marks, whereas in 'English Core' the marks
have remained same. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said
result and in these circumstances, has preferred the present writ
petition claiming that the re-evaluation has not been done properly.
5. While urging that re-evaluation has not been done properly as
noted above, the petitioner has also made a prayer for supply of a copy
of the re-evaluation answer-sheets to her. Upon notice, a short counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been urged
that there is no provision for supply of a photocopy of the re-evaluated
answer-sheet and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the same as
a matter of right. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
even otherwise the re-evaluated answer-sheet is the same original
answer-sheet, which stands re-evaluated by a different examiner,
which has already been supplied to the petitioner, based on which she
had applied for revaluation. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the
respondent, therefore, contends that no purpose would be achieved by
providing another set of the same answer-sheets to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner, however, contends that, once the Division Bench
has already given directions, that the answer-sheets should be provided
to the candidates, there is no reason as to why the respondent could not
provide a copy of the re-evaluated answer-sheet to the petitioner.
7. Pursuant to order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court, the
respondent was directed to reproduce the re-evaluated answer-sheets
for the forth perusal. I have perused the same and find that the
petitioner's marks have been increased in the 'Economics' paper after
a thorough re-evaluation and there is a chart showing the change in
marks in respect of the re-evaluation, in both the papers.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records, I am of the considered opinion that once there is a direction by
the Division Bench of this Court that the candidates are entitled to be
provided with a photocopy of their answer-sheets, there is no
justification on the part of the respondent in not providing the copies
of her re-evaluated answer-sheets to the petitioner. The respondent is,
accordingly, directed to provide photocopies of the re-evaluated
answer-sheets in the subjects 'Economics and English Core' to the
petitioner through counsel, within two days from today under proper
receipt.
9. However as far as the first prayer of the petitioner seeking a
direction to the respondent to re-evaluate the answer-sheet in proper
manner is concerned, I find that the said prayer is wholly
misconceived. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that experts
have already re-evaluated the answer-sheets and, therefore, it would
not be open to the Court to interfere with the result, where the subject
experts have already re-evaluated the answer-sheet of the petitioner on
two occasions.
10. I am fortified in my aforesaid conclusion by the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court where while following its earlier decisions of
the Constitution Bench in University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao,
AIR 1965 SC 491 as held in Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim
University & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 546 it has been need that "normally
it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic
matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they
face then the Courts generally are".
11. In my considered view, the Court does not have the requisite
expertise to determine whether the re-evaluation has been properly
done or not, as is sought to be contended by the petitioner and,
therefore, I see no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner qua her
prayer no.'A' seeking a further re-evaluation of her answer-sheets.
12. The writ petition alongwith pending application is disposed of in
the above terms with no order as to costs.
REKHA PALLI, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2018/sr
