Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
KUNTAL CHOUDHARY V/S BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANOTHER , decided on Wednesday, November 4, 2015.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench, Civil Writ Petition No. 1979 of 2014. ] 04/11/2015
Judge(s) : SANGEET LODHA
Advocate(s) : Rajesh Joshi, Vineet R. Dave. B.L. Bhati, Government Counsel.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Bhaskar Pareek Versus The State of Rajasthan & Another,   07/03/2017.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2016 (1) WLN 465"  ==   " 2015 (24) SCT 150"  ==   ""  







    1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner who had appeared in Senior Secondary Examination 2012-13 is seeking directions to the respondents to re-evaluate her answer sheets.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared in Senior Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan ('the Board') during the academic session 2012-13 with the subjects Hindi Compulsory English Compulsory Geography Drawing and English Literature. The result of the examination was declared and the mark sheet was issued. The petitioner secured 417 marks out of 500 marks i.e 83. 40%. The petitioner secured 30 marks out of 80 in the paper of English Literature.3. The petitioner applied for re-evaluation of answer sheets of three papers i.e. Hindi Compulsory English Compulsory and English Literature. The re-evaluation was not permitted however the result of re-totalling was declared by the respondent-Board.4. The petitioner also applied for photo copies of the answer sheets which were supplied to her. On perusal of the answer sheets of English Literature the petitioner came to know that in respect of many questions attempted by her no marks were awarded by the examiner. As per the question paper of English Literature many questions set out were bifurcated in three or more parts and the marks were allocated to each part of the questions yet the petitioner was not awarded separate marks for each part accordingly. It is submitted that on account of award of lesser marks in the paper of English Literature the petitioner stands deprived of the place in the merit list. Hence this petition.5. On 23.5.14 while issuing notices to the petitioner an interim order was passed by this court directing the respondents not to destroy the answer sheets of the petitioner's examination of the subject English Literature.6. The respondent Board has filed a reply to the show cause notice taking the stand that there is no provision for reevaluation and therefore the re-totalling of the marks obtained by the petitioner in all the three papers as applied for was made however there was no change in the marks obtained and the petitioner was informed accordingly. It is submitted that in absence of any provision in the relevant rules providing for reevaluation of the answer sheets the petitioner has no right to claim re-evaluation. The averments made in the petition regarding the marks being not awarded to the petitioner for different parts of the questions as per the allocation made has not been specifically controverted by the respondent. No justification for not awarding the marks for each part of the questions has been set out either.7. Drawing the attention of this court to the question paper and the answer sheets of the paper of English Literature learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that question no. 7 and 8 are bifurcated in three parts each carrying 1 mark however in both the questions the petitioner was awarded 2 marks each in lump sum whereas she had attempted all the three parts of both the questions. Question no. 9 was bifurcated in three parts and the examinees were required to attend 2 out of 3 parts each part carrying 6 marks totalling 12 marks the petitioner attempted both the parts however she was awarded 3 marks in part (iii) attempted however no marks were awarded for part (i). Similarly in question no. 10 which was bifurcated in five parts and the examinee was required to attempt 4 out of 5 each question carrying 3 marks totalling 12 marks the petitioner attempted part (i) (ii) (iii) & (v) however she was not awarded any marks for the part (i) (ii) & (iii) and in part (iv) she was awarded 3 marks. Similar grievance is raised by the 4 petitioner in respect of question no. 1 & 2 as well.8. Indisputably as per the question paper allocation of marks for the bifurcated parts of questions was made and the examiner was required to evaluate the answer of each part and award the marks separately but apparently the petitioner has not been awarded the marks for each part as per the allocation of marks and the instructions issued by the Board to the examiners for award of the marks also stand flouted. In this regard the copy of the question paper of English Literature and photo copy of the answer sheet of the petitioner placed on record are self explanatory. As noticed here in above the specific averment made in the writ petition regarding the apparent error in award of the marks to the petitioner in the paper of English Literature are not controverted by the respondent. Moreover on being asked by the court about the justification of not awarding the marks to the petitioner for all the parts of various questions attempted by her the learned Government Counsel had no answer except that there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheet and therefore the petitioner cannot claim the evaluation of the answer sheets and the result declared by the Board has to be taken as final.9. It is true that in absence of any provision in the relevant rules examinee have no right to claim or demand re-evaluation of the answer sheet but then when the facts regarding the gross error/negligence on the part of the examiner in re-evaluation of the answer sheets is apparent on the face of record in the considered opinion of this court it would be unfair to non suit the petitioner solely on the ground that relevant rules does not provide for re-evaluation of the answer sheets. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of gross negligence on the part of the examiner in evaluating the answer sheets more so when the evaluation made is proved to be demonstrably wrong.10. In this view of the matter this court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for re-evaluation of answer sheet of the subject English Literature deserves to be accepted.11. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent-Board of Secondary Education to get re-evaluated the answer sheet of the petitioner of the subject English Literature of Senior Secondary Examination 2012-13 by an examiner other than the examiner who had earlier evaluated the answer of the petitioner of the said subject. The entire exercise regarding re-evaluation of the answer sheet and the declaration of the result thereafter shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.