http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4926 of 2006

PETITIONER: The President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr

RESPONDENT: D. Suvankar & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/11/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No.17990 of 2005)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a  Division 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 of Rs.20,000/- was  awarded for wrong intimation about the total marks actually  received by the respondent No.1.   

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent No.1 appeared at the High School Certificate  Examination\0262004 conducted by the appellant-board.  Result  of the said examination was published on 25.6.2004. Initially,  respondent no.1 was declared to have passed in the 1st  Division securing 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent  no.1 made a representation pointing out that the marks  appear to have been 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.1 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 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.1 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 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 654 as was originally  recorded.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that  there is no scope for revaluation but directed payment of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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 had  secured more than 682 marks.  Earlier the High Court in the  case of Bismaya Mohanty & Ors. v. Board of Secondary  Education, Orissa represented by its Secretary and Ors.   (1996 (1) 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 the possibility of injustice on account of  marginal variation in marks, considering power given to Chief  Examiners in certain specified cases.

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 another v.  Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth. etc. (AIR 1984 SC 1543), it is  in the public interest that the results Public examinations  when published should have some finality attached to them. If  inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and  revaluation are to be allowed as of right, 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 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. In 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 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 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/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 of schools from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

valuation centre. After selection of Examiners, the Computer  print of the subject-wise and Unit-wise list of 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. (ii)  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.

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 purpose of evaluation of answer papers  would be frustrated. Nothing should be left to show even an  apprehension about lack 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  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  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, 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 has  working knowledge in the subject. But the valuation should be  done by an Examiner who is well equipped in the subject.  That would rule out the 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 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.  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr. Civil Appeal  Nos.5413-5414 of 2004.  This Court by order dated 13.8.2004  held that 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 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.1 for re-valuation.   Having held that the writ petition was to be dismissed the  imposition of cost for initial mistake which was later rectified  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 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 case  (supra).  Initially, candidate’s case was not covered.  But on  account of 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.1.  In the first marks sheet the  total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marks sheet 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 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 sheet is issued to the candidates since  candidates who appear at the High School Certificate are of  tender age. If by 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 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 ensure accuracy.  The Assistant Examiner and the  Scrutinizer appear to have taken their jobs casually  unmindful of the consequences which result from their  negligence acts.  Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- has to be  paid to the respondent no.1 by the Board out of which it shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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 has 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 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 this Court set aside the order of the  High Court. No opinion was expressed 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 under consideration.

Though on the basis of marks secured by him (i.e. 690)  respondent no.1’s case ought to have been considered by the  Committee, we feel no useful purpose shall be served by giving  direction to do so at the present juncture.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  No costs.