Nripendra Pratap Singh Pal vs The Board Of Secondary Education ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 17012 MP

                                  1
       IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                            PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                       BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                  ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                   WRIT PETITION No. 29586 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
NRIPENDRA PRATAP SINGH PAL S/O SHRI
HEMANT SINGH PAL, AGE ABOUT - 18,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O KUMHARPURA GOI
PAHADIYA GIRD, LASHKAR, GWALIOR, DISTT.
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.S. RAWAT - ADVOCATE )

AND
THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION BHOPAL
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ARUN DUDAWAT - ADVOCATE)

       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(I) That, the respondent kindly directed to proper valued the question no.- 5, 13 and 18 of Hindi subject, and question no.-3 in Elementary of Animal & Milk Trade poultry farming & Fisheries subject and also question no.-5 in Elements of Science & Mathematics use for Agriculture subject and

awarded proper marks.

(II) That, after valuation of the answer sheet, the correct mark sheet also may kindly be issued. (III) That, other relief doing justice including heavy cost be ordered.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

had appeared in the examination of Class 12th in the Agriculture stream and his answer sheet has not been properly evaluated and less marks have been given. It is submitted although there is no provision of revaluation but in the light of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prakhar Kumar Mishra Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Anr. reported in ILR 2016 MP 1354, a direction can be

issued to the respondent to revaluate the answer sheet.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that there is no provision for revaluation.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, there is no provision for revaluation. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vs. Dr.

Yerra Trinadh and Others decided on 04 th November, 2022, in Civil Appeal No.8037/2022 has held as under:-

"7. The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, whether in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation after calling for the record of the answer scripts?

8. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, few decisions of this Court including two, referred to

hereinabove, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, are required to be referred to and considered. 8.1 In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand reevaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is observed and held as under:

7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer-book.

There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a

candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re- evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.

8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the

subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.

8.2 In the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, in paragraph 32, it is observed and held as under:

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's

advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for reevaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved."

In view of the aforesaid judgment and in absence of any provision for revaluation, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court cannot direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer sheets.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shubhankar Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2022.12.21 18:06:39 +05'30'