Ku. Pallavi Pardhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 11615 MP

                                                                      1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                           ON THE 5th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                                      WRIT PETITION No. 18833 of 2020

                                          Between:-
                                          KU. PALLAVI PARDHI D/O SMT. SHANTI
                                          BHEEMCHAND PARDHI, AGED ABOUT 17
                                          YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O WARD
                                          NO.1 MISHRA NAGAR WARASEONI, DISTT.
                                          BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                          (BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA- ADVOCATE)

                                          AND

                                  1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                          SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2.      MADHYAMIC SHIKSHA MANDAL MP BHOPAL
                                          THROUGH     SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
                                          BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  3.      THE      PRINCIPAL B A L A G H A T HIGHER
                                          SECONDARY SCHOOL ST..VIDHYA SAGAR
                                          CONVENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
                                          WARASEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                          (BY SHRI PRABHANSHU CHATURVEDI- ADVOCATE)

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

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Signature Not Verified SAN

petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.09.07 17:05:02 IST "1 . That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased

to issue ' an appropriate writ in favor of the petitioner and may kindly command the respondent to make revaluation of the pettioner’s answer sheet Annexure P/3 in respect of question Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 16 of Annexure P/2 and accordingly the fresh marks sheet of the petitioner be prepared and issue.

2. That, any other suitable relief regarding compensation deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition." The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents have not properly

evaluated answers of Chemistry subject, which have been rightly answered by the petitioner and due improper evaluation of question Nos. 5, 6 8 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18 the petitioner has been awarded less marks than what she expected resulting in degradation of her merit position.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed answer copies of the Chemistry subject, which reveals that all the answers to the questions are descriptive in nature.

In the instant case the answers are descriptive in nature and therefore the wisdom of the expert evaluator in evaluating the answers cannot be adjudged by exercising writ jurisdiction especially in the absence of any expertise with this court in the relevant field. More so, in matters of evaluation of marks awarded in examination ought not to be interfered with or else it may open pandora's box and lead to flood of litigation which would be difficult for this court to handle.

Signature Not Verified This court is bolstered in it's view by the decision of the Apex court in the case SAN

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR o f Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary BURMAN Date: 2022.09.07 17:05:02 IST

Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth (AIR 1984 SC 1543) relevant

extract of which is reproduced below:-

"The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevant for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances, the University of Bombay has decided to recognize a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned, it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and HSC Examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the Shubhi Nagarchi Vs. Jiwaji University candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates, who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the

entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of Signature Not Verified SAN the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the Date: 2022.09.07 17:05:02 IST

relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process."

Dealing with the scope of interference in such policy matters by Courts, the Supreme Court held :--

"...... The Court can not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-

making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court can not strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power of its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution .... the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in Signature Not Verified SAN

preference to those formulated by professional men possessing Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN

technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working Date: 2022.09.07 17:05:02 IST

of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."

Dealing with the contention that students who do very well in the examination, will be highly prejudiced if there is no provision for revaluation, and therefore Courts should interfere in such matters, the Supreme Court, held thus:-

"It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one where to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice."

Considering the question whether a right to revaluation should b e recognized, while examining the validity of a Rule barring revaluation, the Supreme Court held :--

"We are unable to agree with the further reason stated by the High Court that since 'every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his performance' it will be a denial of the right to such fair play if there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand revaluation and unless a right to revaluation is recognized and permitted there is an infringement of

Signature Not Verified SAN rules of fair play. What constitutes fair play depends upon the facts

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is BURMAN Date: 2022.09.07 17:05:02 IST

found that every possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with checks and cross checks at different stages and that measures for detection of malpractice etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such cases it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to strike down the provision prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of fair play."

The above said decision of Apex Court has been followed by this Court in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005(2) MPLJ 315 and in WP No. 5320/2016 (Rahul Soni Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Anr.) decided on 16.03.2017.

In view of the above, there is no scope for interference in the present

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vinay*

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 2022.09.07 17:05:02 IST