G. Kanchana vs The Director of Government Examinations, Department of Government Examinations

P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to evaluate the answers for question Nos. 24

and 32 in the Bio-Botany paper written by the petitioner in the examination conducted by the respondent for the Higher Secondary Course

Certificate and consequently to direct the respondent to award full marks to the petitioner for question Nos. 24 and 32 and to issue a revised mark

sheet.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained the following marks in the Higher Secondary Examination:

Physics : 200/200

Chemistry: 197/200

Biology : 195/200

The petitioner has immediately applied for re-valuation and paid the necessary fees. She was given additional one mark on re-valuation. The

petitioner also applied for a xerox copy of the answer sheet relating to Bio-Botany paper and she found that question No. 24 was not valued at all.

Similarly, according to her, the answer for question No. 32 also contained the mark of the examiner as 3+2 and after striking off the said mark, it

has been corrected as 2+2. Therefore she is entitled to totally five marks for that question.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on the writ side.

Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that it is admitted by the respondent that on revaluation, it was

found that question No. 24 was not valued at all and therefore the petitioner was given two marks for that question and that in respect of question

No. 32, one mark was reduced.

Perused the entire materials available on record. I also verified the xerox copy of the answer sheet given to the petitioner. It is seen from the

xerox copy of the answer sheet that question No. 24 was not valued earlier and on re-valuation, two marks have been awarded to that question.

In respect of question No. 32, the original examiner has awarded four marks, which has been confirmed on re-valuation also. But the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that a perusal of the said answer sheet would show that the original examiner himself, while

awarding marks, atleast in two places has put ""3+2"", totally meaning 5, which is the maximum mark. But however, the number ""3"" has been struck

off and made as ""2"". Even at the end of the page, the original examiner has awarded five marks and after striking off the same, he has made it as

4"". It is admitted that on re-valuation, the subsequent examiner has awarded only four marks in respect of question No. 32. Even though t here

appears to be some discrepancy in awarding the marks by the original examiner, this court is concerned only about the re-valuation marks and

when once the subsequent examiner has decided that the mark should be ""4"", this court cannot interfere in such circumstances. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also pointed out that there are some discrepancies in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. It is true that the

respondent has filed the counter affidavit with some mistakes and discrepancies. Though the counter affidavit is filed in a hasty manner with some

mistakes, a perusal of the answer sheet would show that the marks awarded for question No. 35 is only ""9"" and not ""10. Therefore there is

absolutely no material against the respondent. In these circumstances, I am of the view that at this stage this court cannot interfere with the marks

awarded to the petitioner on revaluation. Ms. V. Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader, produced before this court G.O.Ms. No. 53

dated 21.04.2003 to show that while re-valuing the papers, it is open to the examiner to even reduce the marks already awarded. In addition to

that, she also took me through the answer to question No. 35, in which the original examiner has awarded ""1+5+4 = 10"" marks. While on re-

valuation, the same has been reduced to ""9"".

In the result, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court, especially when in respect of question No. 2 4, the

petitioner has been awarded ""2"" marks. She must be satisfied with that. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. No costs.

W.P.M.P. No. 22980/2004 is closed.