The President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Anr. v. D. Suvankar and Anr.
ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division H
A Bench of the Orissa High Court. While holding that there was no provision
under any rule or regulations of the Appellant-Board for revaluation, a sum
ofRs.20,000/- was awarded for wrong intimation about the total marks actually
received by the respondent No. I.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent No. I appeared at the High School Certificate Examination
2004 conducted by the appellant-Board. Result of the said examination was
published on 25.6.2004. Initially, respondent no.I was declared to have passed
in the 1st Division securing 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent no.I
made a representation pointing out that the marks appear to have been
C wrongly mentioned in the marks sheet. Answer scripts were verified, and it
was found that the marks awarded in one paper i.e. SSH were wrongly shown
as 35 though respondent No. I had really secured 65 marks. It was pointed
out that the mistake occurred due to the wrong entry made in the computer.
The error was rectified in the Tabulation Register and fresh marks sheet was
D issued on 7.7.2004. The revised marks sheet was sent to the Zonal Officer,
at Balasore for onward transmission to the Headmaster, N.S. Police High
School where the petitioner had prosecuted studies. In September, 2004
respondent no. I filed writ petition. It is to be noted that Board had constituted
a Committee pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya Mohanty's case
(supra). The cut off mark was fixed at 682. As at that time the respondent
E no.1 's marks were taken to be 654, his papers were not examined by the
Committee. As the candidate had deposited requisite fees for checking of
addition of marks, the exercise was undertaken and it was noted that in the
SSH paper he had secured 71 and not 65 as was posted in the cover page.
In other words, the actual marks secured by the candidate were 690 and not
F 654 as was originally recorded.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no
scope for revaluation but directed payment of Rs.20,000/- for the negligence
of the Board. Main prayer in the writ petition was to direct the appellant
Board to revalue answer sheet as was done in the case of candidates who,
G had secured more than 682 marks. Earlier the High Court in the case of
Bismaya Mohanty & Ors. v. Board of SecondmJ' Education, Orissa
represented by its Secretary and Ors. ( 1996) I OLR 134 had directed that the
answer sheet of the students who had secured more than particular number
of marks were to be re-examined by the Committee of three examiners to avoid
H the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks,
THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. ORISSA '" D. SUVANKAR [PASA Y AT,l] 114 7
considering power given to Chief Examiners in certain specified cases. A
The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this
Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth. etc. AIR (1984) SC
1543, it is in the public interest that the results of Public examinations when
published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification B
in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as ofright,
it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the
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. The
Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what C
is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to
those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the
departments controlling them. It would 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 end 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 pragmatic one were to be
propounded. IP. the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board
has assured a zero defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost
fool-proof.
Award of marks by an Examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact
that revaluation is not permissible under the Statute, the Examiner has to be
careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly
evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination
is a stepping-stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision F
for revaluation cannot be a shield for the Examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the
answer script. That would be against the very concept for which revaluation
> is impermissible.
The learned counsel for the Board has stated that due proper care is
taken in the matter of selection of Examiners. Procedure followed by the G
Board was stated to be as follows:
Names of teachers teaching different subjects are obtained from the
schools in a prescribed form named Teachers Index Form. The data supplied
by the schools in the Teachers Index Form are entered in the Computer. Circle
wise/subject-wise seniority list of Chief Examiners/ Assistant Examiners/ H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A Scrutinisers is prepared. After the Unit Chart of the valuation centre is
finalised, allotment of Chief Examiner/ Asst. Examiner/Scrutiniser made by the
Computer basing on the guidelines framed by the Examination Committee,
keeping in view the distance ofschools from valuation centre. After selection
of Examiners, the Computer print of the subject-wise and Unit-wise list of
B Chief Examiners/ Asst. Examiners and Scrutinisers is finalised, and thereafter
the appointment orders are issued. Criteria fixed are stated to be as follows:
(i) Minimum teaching experience for Chief Examiners and Asst.
Examiners is stipulated.
(it) Chief Examiners are appointed on rotation and Asst. Examiners
on seniority basis.
(iii) In case of shortage, the experience restriction can be relaxed.
(iv) Scruitnisers are appointed from among the subject- teachers with
particular years of teaching experience.
D It has to be ensured that the Examiners who make the valuation of
answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration
in such cases is the ability of the Examiner. The Board has bounden duty to ~'
select such persons as Examiners who have the capacity, capability to make
valuation and they should really equipped for the job. Otherwise, the very
E purpose of evaluation of answer papers would be frustrated. Nothing should
be left to show even an apprehension about Jack of fair assessment. It is true
that valuation of two persons cannot be equal on golden scales, but wide
variation would affect credibility of the system of valuation. If for the same
answer one candidate gets higher marks than another that would be arbitrary.
As indicated above, the scope for interference in matters of valuation of
F answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity
in valuation, the Court step in. Care should be taken to see that the Examiners
who have been appointed for a particular subject belong to the same faculty.
It would be a mockery of the system of valuation of a teacher belonging to 4.
Arts stream is asked to evaluate answer papers of Science stream. It may be
that a teacher had Physics. Chemistry or Biology at the Intermediate Level,
G but at Graduation stage he had special paper in Zoology. To ask such a
teacher to evaluate Botany paper would not be proper. Similarly in the case
of a teacher having Mathematics in Intermediate Level while he took his high
studies in Physics, or Chemistry, or Botany at the Graduation Level, evaluation
of answer paper in Mathematics by him would not be proper. May be that he
H has working knowledge in the subject. But the valuation should be done i.>y
>
THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. ORISSA "· D. SUVANKAR [PASAYAT, J.] 1149
an Examiner who is well equipped in the subject. That would rule out the A
chance of variation improper valuation. Board authorities should ensure that
anomalous situations as pointed out above do not occur. Additional steps
should be taken for assessing the capacity of a teacher before he is appointed
as an Examiner. For this purpose, the Board may constitute a Body of Experts
to interview the persons who intend to be appointed as Examiners. This B
process is certainly time-consuming but it would further the ends for which
the examinations are held. The Chief Examiner is supposed to act as a safety
valve in the matter of proper assessment.
One thing which cannot be lost sight of is the marginal difference of
marks which decide the placement of candidates in the merit list. C
The High Court in another case has directed that answer scripts of all
the candidates who had secured more than 90% of marks should be re
checked. The said decision of the High Court was assailed before this Court
in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr. Civil
Appeal Nos.5413-5414 of2004. This Court by order dated 13.8.2004 held that D
since there is no provision for re-valuation, the High Court's direction was
not sustainable.
In the instant case the High Court was of the view that the earlier view
in Bismaya Mohanty 's case (supra) was not approved by this Court in said E
Civil Appeals.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant-Board the High
Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition rejecting the prayer of the
respondent No. I for re-valuation. Having held that the writ petition was to
be dismissed the imposition of cost for initial mistake which was later rectified F
is clearly impermissible.
By order dated 5.9.2005 by issuing notice it was directed that the·
Computer Firm and the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer who were
responsible for wrong entry of the marks were to be noticed. Stand of the G
computer firm was that since entries were made for several lakhs of students,
mistake of this nature should not be given importance.
It is not in dispute that the Board's regulations do not provide for any
revaluation. What is provided is for the addition of the marks. The Board had
set up a Committee pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya Mohanty's H.
case (supra). Initially, candidate's case was not covered. But on account of
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A corrections his case was to be considered. His total marks were 690, whereas
the cut off marks fixed by the Board were 682.
The appellant-Board is certainly not blemishless. Undisputedly, lesser
marks were shown in the marks sheet supplied to the respondent No. I. In
the first marks sheet the total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marks sheet
B was issued showing the aggregate marks to be 690. Except putting the blame
on the Computer Firm, Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer, nothing further
has been offered by the appellant-Board as explanation. True it is the first
mistake was of the computer firm but the second correction is clearly on the
basis of the prayer for re-addition of marks; It was found that the marks
C actually secured were 71 while on the cover page of the answer sheet the
marks noted as 65. For this the blame has to be fixed on the Assistant
Examiner and the Scrutinizer. But that does ·not provide an escape route to
the Board.
Ultimately, it is the Board which has to ensure that the correct marks
D sheet is issued to the candidates since candidates who appear at the High
Sc~ool Certificate are of tender age. If i>y mistake the Board indicates to the
candidates' incorrect marks, it is bound to have adverse effect on the mind
of the candidates of tender age. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the
Board to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate. The
E plea of the computer firm that considering the large number of candidates the
mistake is not serious has no substance. The computer entries are made to
ensure accuracy and to do away with defects which arise from manually
recording of marks and to ensme accuracy. The Assistant Examiner and the
Scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually unmindful of the
F consequences which result from their negligence acts. Therefore, the sum of
Rs.20,000/- has to be paid to the respondent No. I by the Board out of which
it shall recover Rs.15,000/- from computer firm. It appears that the Board has
taken action against the Assistant Examiner and Scrutinizer for their negligence.
While affirming action taken against them, we express our displeasure for their
careless and negligent acts which have led to unnecessary litigation.
The High Court has erroneously held that this Court did not approve
the directions given in Bismaya Mohanty 's case (supra). It is to be noted that
in Civil Appeal Nos.5413-5414 of 2004, the correctness of the decision in
Bismaya Mohanty 's case (supra) was not under consideration. The High
H Court in the impugned judgment in the said case had departed from the
directions given in the Bismaya Mohanty's case (supra) and in that background
THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. ORI SSA 1•. D. SUVANKAR [PASA YAT. J.] 1151
this Court set aside the order of the High Court. No opinion was expressed A
about the correctness of the decision in Bismaya Mohanty 's case (supra).
Additionally, the Board itself on the basis of said decision had constituted
the Committee in the year un<ier consideration.
Though on the basis of marks secured by him (i.e. 690) respondent
No.l's case ought to have been considered by the Committee, we feel no B
useful purpose shall be served by giving direction to do so at the present
juncture.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
NJ, Appeal disposed of. C