Kerala High Court
Nazeera Noushad vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 4 March, 2021
WA 425/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
Thursday,the 4th day of March 2021/13th Phalguna, 1942
WA No.425/2021
WP(C) No.24185/2020 of this Court.
For information--- purpose only
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NAZEERA NOUSHAD,AGED 46 YEARS,
W/O NOUSHAD, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, GCDA SANTHI NIVAS, VEDIMARA,
MANNAM P.O., PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683520.
BY NAZEERA NOUSHAD(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, SHIKSHA KENDRA 2, COMMUNITY
CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092.
2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, (CBSE), BLOCK B,
2ND FLOOR, LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the circumstances
stated in the appeal memorandum the High Court be pleased to direct the
respondents to provisionally revaluate the answer sheets of the appellant's son,
pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders on 04.03.2021 upon perusing the appeal
memorandum, the court on the same day passed the following:-
WA 425/2021 2/5
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & GOPINATH P., JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A. No. 425 of 2021
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021
ORDER
For information purpose only
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
Notice before admission to the respondents by speed post. Sri.S.Nirmal, the
learned Standing counsel takes notice for the respondents.
2. The challenge in the Writ Appeal is to the judgment dated 15.02.2021 of the
learned Single Judge that rejected a Writ Petition preferred by the mother of a
student who had appeared in the 12th standard examination (C.B.S.E) conducted
by the respondents. The boy was a student of the Al Azhar Public School,
Thodupuzha. It would appear that the appellant's son failed in 4 out of the 5
subjects that he appeared for and although a request for verification of marks and
re-counting and re-valuation was preferred, the said exercise did not result in any
change in the marks of the appellant's son.
3. Before the Writ Court, it was the case of the appellant that her son was
suffering from "exam fear" and it was on account of his illegible handwriting that
he failed in 4 out of 5 subjects.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the matter, and after taking note of
the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, found
that inasmuch as the Rules of the respondents did not permit a further
revaluation by an independent expert, the matter had to be closed by deciding the
Writ Petition against the appellant herein.
5. Before us, the appellant who appears in person, makes submission that are
more emotional than legal. She relies on Ext.P6 that was produced along with the
Writ Petition, to show that the teachers of the Al Azhar Public School,
Thodupuzha, in the subjects concerned, have opined that more marks could have
WA 425/2021 3/5
been granted to her son for the questions attempted by him in the various
subjects, going by the answer key published by the C.B.S.E. She submits that if
the marks as suggested by the teachers of the school are awarded to the answers
given by her son then he would get the minimum marks required for a pass in the
aforesaid 4 subjects.
6. On a consideration of the emotional plea made by the appellant, driven by
For information purpose only
her maternal instincts, we find that the appellant's son has secured only 31.25%
in the theory paper in Mathematics, 31.5% in the theory paper in Physics, 25.70%
in the theory paper in Chemistry and 21.40% in the theory paper in Biology. As
per the Regulations of the respondents, the minimum required for a pass in each
of the aforesaid subjects is 33%. The Regulations also stipulate that it is only in
circumstances where a student has failed in one subject alone that the student
concerned will be permitted to appear for the compartment exam to better the
results in the said subject. If on the other hand, a student fails in more than one
subject, then there is no alternative except for the student to reappear at the
exam in the next academic year.
7. Given the inherent limitations that this Court faces when dealing with
academic matters, and despite finding, prima facie, no reason to interfere with
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we feel it appropriate to request the
respondents to get Ext.P6 opinion considered by the subject experts nominated by
the 2 nd respondent, so as to ascertain whether there is any merit in the said
suggestions. We clarify that this direction is issued solely for the purposes of
ensuring that no injustice has been caused to the appellant's son in connection
with the valuation of his papers. The directions are not to be treated as
peremptory in nature for altering the marks of the appellant's son but only as
requiring the subject experts to consider the merits of the suggestion in Ext.P6.
The views of the respondents shall be made available before this Court within
three weeks.
Post on 26.03.2021.
WA 425/2021 4/5
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P., JUDGE
/true copy/
Sd/-
For information purpose only ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
WA 425/2021 5/5
Ext.P6:TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT
MADE BY THE TEACHERS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SCHOOL.
For information purpose only
