Adv. K.K.Sajikumar vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J

These appeals are directed against the common judgment in WP(C)Nos.3615 of 2022 and 2666 of 2022. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above appeals are as follows:-

WA No.294 of 2022

The writ petitioner in WP(C)No.3615 of 2022 from which the above appeal arises is the father of twin daughters studying in the 10th standard under the SCERT syllabus. It is alleged that due to Covid 19 pandemic there were no regular classes for students in the entire State during the academic year 2020-2021 except few online classes and the present students of the 10th standard were not given proper classes in the 9th standard and the syllabus of the 10th standard is the continuation of the syllabus of the 9th standard. It is further alleged that during the initial months of the present year there were only one or two hours of online classes daily and one hour class in the 'Kite Victors TV channel' daily for five days in a week. Though the offline classes started with limited hours of teaching for three days a week, the teachers may not be able to complete even half of the syllabus within the stipulated time. On account of this the Director, SCERT, the third respondent published a 'focus area' of the portions and also published a format of the question paper, Ext.P2, which is the pattern for the 10th standard students for the academic year 2021-2022, as per which out of the total score to be obtained, 70% will be from the focus area and the rest from the non-focus area and those students who want to score more than 70% should study the entire syllabus for the academic year, which may not be possible in the current academic year for the reasons mentioned above and thus the relief sought in the writ petition was to quash the pattern introduced as per Ext.P2 and also for a direction to the third respondent to publish a new question paper pattern for the 10th standard students considering the total academic hours available in the present academic year.

WA No.312 of 2022

WP(C)No.2666 of 2022 is filed by the students studying in the 12th standard questioning Ext.P5 order of the Government issuing guidelines for teaching and preparation of question papers in connection with SSLC, Higher Secondary and Vocational Higher Secondary examination for March, 2022 fixing the focus area at 60% of the total portion to be studied. It is the further stipulation that 70% of the questions will come from this 60% of the syllabus viz., the focus area and that sufficient choices will be given to the extent of 50% extra marks. In the writ petition the condition shown as serial No.2 mandating that only 70% of the marks will come from the focus area is challenged and that a direction is also sought to ensure that 100% marks will have to be allotted to the questions from the focus area from the Plus 2 examination to be conducted in March 2022 and also for a declaration that the students will be able to secure 100% marks in case they attempt correctly all the questions from the focus area. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 is extracted hereunder:-

“xxx

Government have examined the matter in detail and issue the following guidelines for teaching and preparation of Question papers in connection with SSLC, Higher Secondary and Vocational Higher Secondary Examination for March 2022.

I. Focus area to be fixed at 60% of the total portion to be studied.

70% of questions to come from this 60% portion.

Sufficient choices to be given to the extent of 50% extra marks.”

This writ petition also is on the footing that the said creation of the focus area and the marks to be given is against the interest of the students and that the present order is different from the one that existed in 2020-2021 and therefore, even a student who answers all the questions from the focus area will only get 70% marks and the same is doing injustice to the students. In otherwords, the contention is a student who studies the entire materials in the focus area must be able to score 100% instead of 70% now proposed, which will only be B+ grade and the same is a disadvantage to the students in their future studies.

The Government filed a counter specifically pointing out that unlike in the previous academic year where there were hardly any classes, the situation in the current year is entirely different, as in the present year offline classes started at every school level since 01.11.2021. Apart from this first bell digital classes for Plus 1 and Plus 2 students were conducted through the digital platforms like Kite Victors channel. The telecast of the Plus 2 classes which commenced on 01.06.2021 was completed only by 28.02.2022. Login IDs were created for all the teachers and students of the Plus 2 classes for this purpose and the Government has taken every step to see that the students are facilitated with network connectivity as far as possible. On account of these measures the Government feels that the syllabus can be completed by February 2022. Since offline classes were conducted from November and online / digital classes were started from the very beginning of the year, the situation of the present year is far improved from that of the previous year. It is also stated that there will be 50% choice questions for the 70% scores from the focus area and another 50% choice questions for the remaining 30% scores. Thus, the stand of the Government is that fixing a small portion of focus area and providing 100% questions from the said area will defeat the very purpose of the examination and focus area was fixed to enable the student to plan their studies to appear for the examination with the clear picture of the scores to be attained.

The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found that this court cannot sit in the arm chair of the decision making authority or interfere with the policy of the Government under the garb of a judicial review and that taking into account the situation of the current academic year a liberal view as in the previous year cannot be followed. The learned Single Judge also found that the aim by introduction of Ext.P5 was to achieve the best marks to the brighter students so as to help them in their admission to their future studies.

After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by the said decisions the appellants are before us reiterating the contentions in the writ petitions and urging in addition that the examination should be postponed so as to cover the entire syllabus in which event the need to carve out of a focus area could be avoided.

We have heard Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 312 of 2022, Sri.Vishnu S.Arikkattil, the learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.294 of 2022 and Sri.Bijoy Chandran, the learned Government Pleader.

Having considered the rival submissions and perusing the records we are in complete agreement with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. It is pertinent to note that unlike in the previous year there has been classes though online from the start of the academic year itself and offline classes from November 2021, besides steps being taken to ensure internet connectivity to almost every student. Support from the teachers to enable the students were also made available. These measures in the current academic year are entirely different from that of the previous year when there was hardly any teaching compared to that of the present academic year. The scheme adopted then in the previous year, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the present year. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.294 of 2022 and that the departure from the manner awarding of marks and the pattern was unnecessary in the current academic year has to be repelled as the situation existing in the two academic years in question are glaringly different. We also note that fixing 65% of the portion of the syllabus of the focus area and then providing 100% questions from the said portion cannot be said to be a proper evaluation of the respective merit of the students.

The purpose of an examination cannot be to ensure 100% score for all the students. The students also cannot be advised to concentrate on the focus area alone as the entrance examination to follow would be conducted as per the entire syllabus for the students from the Kerala Board will have to compete with the students of the various other Boards in the country. If the students are allowed to get full score from the focus area alone, it is their future that will be affected by not studying the entire syllabus. It is only for the common good of all types of students that the Government felt that stipulations like one in Ext.P5 are to be made. As indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the State there was no direction to teach the syllabus from the focus areas alone, no student who studies both the focus area and non-focus area will be prejudiced in any manner and in fact gets a chance to get full marks in the examination. If a liberal stand as contended by the petitioners is taken, the standard of the examination as well as the value of the certificates offered will be adversely affected.

We feel that by a stipulation in Ext.P5, the students will have to study the entire syllabus, to get full marks and which has to be reckoned. We feel that allowing the previous years pattern to continue will be nothing but anti-merit and not in the interest of the student community. We are also told that the SCERT has already sent the question papers for printing between 05.01.2022 to 22.01.2022 as per the orders of the Director of General Education and that the examinations are scheduled to commence from 30.03.2022. The examination which starts on 30.03.2022 goes up to 26.04.2022 which also shows that the students are getting adequate time to prepare for the examination. We have absolutely no doubt that the pattern now introduced in Ext.P5 is not one to be interfered with in a judicial review. The right of the Government to change its policy and its right not to be tied down to any policy of the past cannot be undermined. Needless to say that in academic matters courts ordinarily hesitate to express any definite opinion as it thinks wise and safe to leave such decisions to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. The reasoning and the conclusion given by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference.

In the result, the writ appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.