Manjari Shastri Minor Through His ... vs Board Of Secondary Education
2023 Latest Caselaw 6463 MP

                                         1

 IN THE          HIGH COURT              OF MADHYA PRADESH

                             AT I N D O R E
                                  BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA



                    WRIT PETITION No. 19915 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
MANJARI SHASTRI MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER
HARIVALLABH SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O:- DR. AMBEDKAR
MARG    MAHESHWAR    DISTRICT  KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
AND
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY SHIVAJI NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                             .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI HARSH KUMAR PATIDAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
..............................................................................................
Reserved on :-     17.2.2023
Pronounced on :- 19.4.2023
..............................................................................................
      This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for

pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following :-

                                   ORDER

1. By way of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner is seeking revaluation of her answer books of subject of

Book Keeping and Accountancy, Business Studies and English on account of

incorrect checking of various questions therein and for increase of marks

accordingly.

2. The petitioner being a student of Higher Secondary School, appeared in

the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2022 and also appeared

in the subjects of Book Keeping and Accountancy, Business Studies and

English. She got 455 marks out of 500 marks, ie., 91% and passed in first

Division. The petitioner thereafter obtained her answer books of Book

Keeping and Accountancy, Business Studies and English and came to know

that various questions therein were wrongly valued by the valuer and he has

awarded her zero marks for the same whereas she had given the correct

answers to the questions as provided under the model answer sheet. Thereafter

she submitted an application for revaluation but the same has been turned

down due to non-availability of provision in that regard in the regulation.

Therefore she has filed the present petition before this Court.

3. The respondent has filed its reply along with which it has filed relevant

part of Regulation No.119 of the Board of Secondary Education Madhya

Pradesh Regulation, 1965 according to which any candidate who has appeared

in Class 12th examination may apply to the Secretary for verification whether

the candidate's answer in particular subject have all been examined and there

has been no mistake in total of the marks in the subject but not for revaluation

of the answers. By letter dated 30.6.2022 the petitioner has been informed that

there is no provision for revaluation hence her application for revaluation

cannot be considered. The respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of

the Division Bench of this court in Neha Indurkhya v/s. M.P. Board of

Secondary Education, Bhopal, 2003 (3) MPLJ 368 to submit that revaluation

is not permissible under the Rules and Regulation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered

their submissions.

5. In Prem Ratan Agrawal v/s. Board of Secondary Education & Ors.,

2002 Vol.2 MPHT 570, this court has held that as general rule the court has no

power to order for revaluation of the answer sheet since the rule does not

provide for revaluation but in extraordinary circumstances, where student is

bright and when injustice has been done it is open to the Court to have a look

at the answer sheet and compare them with the model paper and if there is

gross discrepancy in the answer book then it is always open to the court to call

expert valuer of subject to reevaluate the marks in the court itself.

6. The aforesaid view has been followed in the case of Priyanka Pandey

vs. Secretary Board of Secondary Education, AIR 2007 M.P. 235. In Ran

Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2018 (2) SCC 357, the Supreme

Court has held that even if statutory rules and regulations governing the

examination do not permit revaluation of scrutiny of marks the court may

permit revaluation or scrutiny if it is demonstrated very clearly that material

error has been committed. It has been held in para 30 as under :-

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re- evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate"

7. Thus it is clear that in extraordinary circumstances this court has the

power to direct the Board to reevaluate the answer books.

8. So far as the present matter is concerned as regards revaluation of the

questions in subjects of Book Keeping and Accountancy, Business Studies and

English of the petitioner, she has contended that in Book Keeping and

Accountancy six answers, in Business Studies 8 answers and in English 5

answers have been correctly given by the petitioner when tallied with the

model answer sheets issued by the respondent Board itself. However, they

have been marked as wrong answers or full marks have not been awarded for

them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court through the

question papers of all the above 3 subjects, their model answers and the

answers given by the petitioner to them.

9. On a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear as noonday that the answers

given by the petitioner to question No.1 (ii), (iii), 2 (iii), 5 (i), 20 and 22 in

Book Keeping and Accountancy, question No.2 (i), 4(ii), 9, 12, 17, 18, 21 and

23 in Business Studies and 4, 6(i), 7(i)(v) and 13 in English subjects were

absolutely correct when the same are compared and tallied with the model

answers prescribed by the respondent Board itself and ought to have been

marked as correct by valuer. However, the answers to all the aforesaid

questions have been marked as wrong by the valuer which is an apparent

mistake on his part. The questions are mostly objective in nature and multiple

choice questions. There cannot be any scope of deliberation as to whether the

answers given by the petitioner were correct since if the option chosen by the

petitioner was the very same which was the correct answer as stipulated by the

respondent Board itself, then there was no scope or occasion for the said

answer to be marked as wrong. However on a perusal of each and every

question, model answers to the same and the answers given by the petitioner to

the questions referred to as above, this court has no hesitation in holding that

the answers were correct but have wrongly been marked as incorrect by the

valuer.

10. The next question which arises for consideration is whether this court is

required to call for the expert of the aforesaid subjects in the court to recheck

the answer books. The petitioner has filed the petition along with copy of the

question papers, model answers to the same and the answers given by her as

supplied by the respondent Board itself. The respondent Board hence ought to

have filed the return on merit with para-wise comments and along with it

ought to have filed opinion of the expert of the concerned subject then there

would have not been any occasion for calling the expert in the court for

rechecking the answer books. However, the aforesaid has not been done by the

respondent. It is settled law that when mistake is obvious and apparent and

increase of marks substantially changes the result and the future of meritorious

candidate, then the court can exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

11. It is apparent that respondent has committed a grave, admitted and

material error in not properly evaluating the answers to the questions in the

aforesaid subjects given by the petitioner. It is common knowledge that in

present day cut throat competition difference of even a single mark can make a

huge difference about the position of the candidate in the merit list. Incorrect

evaluation of even one answer may have a drastic effect in terms of position in

the merit list.

12. In view of the above, I deem it fit and proper to allow this petition and

direct the respondent to recheck answer sheets of petitioner in subject Book

Keeping and Accountancy question No.1 (ii), (iii), 2 (iii), 5 (i), 20 and 22, in

the subject of Business Studies question No.2 (i), 4(ii), 9, 12, 17, 18, 21 and 23

and in subject English 4,6(i),7(i)(iv) and 13 and to grant appropriate marks to

her. The entire exercise be completed within a period of sixty days from the

date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to emphasis that if

on grant of correct marks, the total marks of the petitioner in any of the

aforesaid subjects are increased, then the petitioner shall be issued a fresh

correct mark sheet in accordance with the aforesaid reevaluation.

13. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-

Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2023.04.21 18:11:17 +05'30'