Animesh v. The Central Board of Secondary Education

1. The appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 07.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by him for issuing directions to the respondent/Central Board of Secondary Education (in short „CBSE‟) to revaluate his answer sheet of the Economics paper, for which he had sat in his Grade XII examination, in the academic year 2017-18.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant/petitioner had appeared in Grade XII examinations, 2018 at Delhi, in the academic year 2017-18. Besides Physics, Chemistry and Maths, the appellant had also appeared in the Economics paper that carried 100 marks, divided into two parts: the written examination carried 80 marks and the practicals carried 20 marks. The appellant/petitioner scored 86 marks in Economics. Dissatisfied 2019:DHC:6565-DB with the marks he had scored in reply to Questions No. 8,10,12,17,19,20,23 and 24, the appellant/petitioner applied for a revaluation. Upon revaluation, he was informed that there was no mistake found in the marks assigned. Upon the appellant/petitioner applying for and obtaining a copy of his answer sheet, he found that improper marks had been allotted to his answers to the questions referred to herein above. The appellant/petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.7.2018 to the respondent/CBSE, but did not receive any reply.

3. Aggrieved by the fact that on account of relatively poor marks scored by him in Economics, though he had scored 95 marks each in Physics, Chemistry and Maths, he could not get admission in B.A. Economics (Hons.) in any college affiliated to the North or South Campus, Delhi University, the appellant/petitioner approached the court for relief.

4. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge declined any relief to the appellant/petitioner by turning down the submission made on his behalf that Clause 4 of General Instructions governing valuation of the answer sheets was not mandatory in nature and held that it was the nature of guidelines required to be kept in mind by an examiner, while apportioning marks to various answers given by the candidates and to avoid any subjectivity. It was further observed that recording of total marks awarded to each answer, instead of giving a break-up of the marks by assigning separate marks to each part of the answer, could not be treated as a violation of the General Instructions. The learned Single Judge also opined that even otherwise, it was not for the court to embark into a comparison of the suggested answers provided with those given by the candidates and secondguess the marks awarded against the answers by the examiner as this was beyond the scope of judicial review.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Mr. Ranjit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Instructions provided to the examiners were mandatory in nature and a mechanical evaluation of the answers has resulted in the appellant/petitioner being deprived of admission to his preferred college in the Delhi University. He submits that answers to the questions furnished by the appellant/petitioner were dot on and therefore, he deserved to be marked in terms of the marking Scheme.

7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent/CBSE supports the findings returned in the impugned order and submits that no student has a vested right to challenge revaluation of the answer sheet, once done by the subject expert of the CBSE; that the Scheme dated 31.5.2018 issued by the CBSE on the “Modality and Schedule in respect of Evaluating and Re-evaluating the Answer books” has been followed in the instant case and the answer sheets of the appellant/petitioner in respect of the subject, Economics in Grade XII examinations, 2018 had already been re-evaluated by the examiners and on revaluation, no marks were increased. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/CBSE that qua question No. 12, a Committee of three experts was constituted to have a relook at the appellant‟s answer book and the said Committee had opined that the answer given by him is appropriate. Therefore, the Committee has recommended that full marks should be awarded to the appellant/petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/CBSE clarifies that at the time of re-evaluating question No. 12, there was a difference of opinion between the two experts. As a result, it was decided not to change the marks of the appellant in respect of the answer given to the said question. However, in view of the subsequent report of a three member Committee constituted by the respondent/CBSE after the present appeal came to be filed, 06 marks have been awarded to the appellant as against 03 marks awarded earlier in respect of question No. 12, resulting in an increase of 3 marks in the Economics paper and taking the total tally from 86 to 89 marks.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/CBSE further states that there is no provision for seeking further re-evaluation of an already re-evaluated answer sheet, as would be apparent on a perusal of Clause 3 (ix) of the Scheme dated 31.5.2018, for the simple reason that finality must be attached to the evaluation process and it cannot be left open ended.

10. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent/CBSE cites a recent decision dated 17.7.2019 of this Bench in LPA 453/2019, Paavani Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary Education to contend that once a student has exhausted all the remedies as per the modalities prescribed by the CBSE for re-valuation, the matter should rest there and the Court ought to refrain from stepping into the shoes of evaluator on the ground that the marks assigned to a particular answer, is not as per the marking scheme.

11. Having carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusing the pleadings and examining the observations made in the impugned judgment, we are inclined to affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the General Instructions issued by the respondent/CBSE for marking in respect of the Economics paper in the academic year in question, is not mandatory, but directory in nature. No doubt, para 4 of the General Instructions states that the examiners are required to examine each part of a question carefully and allocate the marks allotted for the parts as given in the marking scheme, but in our view nonadherence to the said Guidelines/Instructions would not entitle the appellant/petitioner to claim that there has been an error on the part of the examiner in evaluating his answer sheet to the point that even after conducting a re-evaluation as has been done in his case, the court should call upon the respondent/CBSE to refer the matter to an expert body to reexamine all the answers to the question paper set for Economics. We are of the opinion that the answer sheet must reflect in clear terms that the evaluation of the answers has been done as per the value points of each answer and after concluding the evaluation, the examiner has awarded total marks for an answer, duly encircled on the left side where the answer ends, so as to avoid any confusion. But that is not to say that each part of the answer must necessarily be allocated marks separately and only then should the total marks for every answer to a question, be recorded.

12. As for the aspect raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the process of re-evaluation of the answer sheets conducted by the respondent/CBSE being incorrect in terms of the marking Scheme, the same should be re-evaluated on directions issued by the Court, we have already expressed our view in the case of Paavani Gupta (supra) wherein a similar plea was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner therein who had prayed that the court may appoint an independent evaluator for fresh re-evaluation of the marks obtained by the student in a couple of subjects in Grade XII CBSE examinations that was turned down by citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education versus Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, reported as (1984) 4 SCC 27, H.P. Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur and Ors., reported as AIR 2010 SC 2620 and Ran Vijay Singh versus State of U.P. reported as (2018) 2 SCC

357. To buttress our view, we may extract below, para 15 of the judgment in Paavani Gupta (supra):-

13. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent/CBSE informs us that aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.7.2019 rendered in the captioned case, the appellant therein had preferred an appeal, registered as SLP (Civil) No.19436/2019 but the Supreme Court had expressed its disinclination to interfere and consequently, the SLP was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the appellant therein to file a review petition, if so advised.