AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Kulasekaran, J.—The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to cause the production of details regarding
revaluation marks and the manner in which the revaluation was done in respect of the answer sheets of the petitioner herein with the Registration No. 916732 of the March 2001 examination
in Biology paper.
The petitioner appeared for +2 Examination held in March 2000 with the registration No. 839800 at S.B.O.A. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Anna Nagar West, Chennai. The
petitioner has obtained total marks of 1115 out of 1200 which includes 190/200 marks in Biology, 188/200 marks in Physics paper. The petitioner appeared for improvement in Physics and
Biology papers held in March 2001 with registration No.916732. In the improvement examination, she was awarded 188 marks in Biology and 190 marks in Physics. Immediately, she has
applied for xerox copy of her answer sheets which was also furnished by the respondents. It is alleged by the petitioner that several mistakes have been committed by the examiner in valuing
the paper as well as setting the key answers and she has applied for re-valuation in Biology paper on 02-07-2001. In the meantime, she was called for medical counselling on 06-07-2001 but
she was wait listed in the Government Colleges in Sl.No.119 and in self-financing colleges under Sl.No.61 in the M.B.C. Quota. Now, the candidate is studying in 1st year B.D.S. Course in
the Government Dental College, Chennai. Consequent to the delay in revaluation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.13116 of 2001 praying for a direction
to revalue the Biology answer sheet which was dismissed by this Court at the stage of admission on 20-07-2001. As against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.
No. 1830 of 2001. In the meantime, on 04-08-2001, the candidate received a telegram from the 1st respondent informing the change of marks found in Biology in revaluation and directed the
petitioner to appear in person along with original marksheets on 04-08-2001 and to surrender the same. When she appeared, she found that she was awarded 192 marks in Biology paper as
against 188 marks awarded. On 07-08-2001 the petitioner sent a representation to the 2nd respondent herein requesting to issue xerox copies of the revalued Biology answer, but the
respondent has not furnished the same. On 28-09-2001, the petitioner met the Directorate of Examination along with the valuation report of Mrs. Swarnalatha Rajeswari certifying that the
petitioner is entitled to six marks. The Petitioner has also collected valuation report dated 30-10-2001 from the reviewer of text books (Biology) Dr. Yadhukulan, Professor of Zoology,
Presidency College, Chennai and submitted it to the respondents. The Director of Government Examinations allegedly promised that a discussion on the subject of revaluation of Biology
answer sheet would be arranged on condition that she withdraw the Writ Appeal No.1831 of 2001. She has withdrawn the Writ appeal on 11-10-2001. The petitioner also attended a joint
meeting along with Mrs. Swarnalatha Rajeswari and Dr. V.V. Rajaram at the office of the 1st respondent on 31-10-2001. The said two experts/P.G. Teachers have drawn the attention of the
1st respondent in respect of the alleged mistake committed by the examiner in Zoology paper which is extracted as mentioned below:-
i) Several answers found in the Key-answers were wrong as evident from the answers found in the Biology higher secondary II year text book published by the Tamil Nadu Text Book
Corporation, specifically the answers found in the key answers with reference to Question Nos. 9 and 31 of my zoology paper are contrary to answers found in the text book:-
ii) It was also pointed out that I have been victimized for writing the correct answer, because of the mistakes committed by the Examiner in setting the key answer;
iii) With reference to question No.9 of Zoology paper I respectfully submitted that I produced the report given by Dr. S. Yadukulan, Professor of Zoology, Presidency College, Chennai, who
is the reviewer of the Biology Text Book, published by Tamil Nadu Text Book Corporation who opined that the answer written by me was the correct answer viz., ""Question No.9: - When a
normal women for normal vision marries a colour blind man, their F1 daughters will be - Answer - Normal - is correct and further in his report he has said that I am entitled to mark for writing
the correct answer.
iv) Regarding Question No.31 of the Zoology Paper - Question - What is Haemophilia - Answer : Correct answer as evident from text book - Haemophilia is caused by recessive gene and
as per key answer Haemophilia is caused by ""Mutant gene"". It is submitted that the experts who participated in the joint meeting brought to the attention of the 1st respondent that both text
book version and key answer version were correct answers and the person who valued the answer paper; by mistake has marked the answer written by me as wrong answer;
v) Regarding Question No.35 (b) of Zoology paper (for a 10 mark question - Sec. D) I was awarded only 5 marks in the original valuation and I am entitled to 5 more marks because all the
key points are available in my answer paper (pages 16, 17, and 18 of my answer sheet)
vi) Regarding Question No.29, 34, 33 it was opined by experts that I am entitled to more marks for writing the correct answers and the Examiner has not valued by biology answer paper
correctly. I am entitled to one mark for each of the Question 29, 33 and 34.
Though the first respondent allegedly assured to consider the points raised by the Experts/P.G. Teachers, they have not passed any order which necessiated the petitioner to meet the first
respondent on 02-11-2001, 06-12-2001 and 07-01-2002, but no action was taken by the respondents, hence this writ petition.
Mr. Thirumavalavan, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing on behalf of the respondents, based on the instructions from the respondents argued that all the answers
written by the candidate were valued correctly and marks were awarded accordingly and on revaluation the below mentioned marks were awarded.
Question No.9222931333435Marks Originally awarded0243495Marks awarded on re-valuation0153589Changes after re-valuationNil-1+1Nil+1-1 +4
As per this statement, six marks were awarded additionally and two marks were deducted and in all four marks were added. As such, the petitioner has secured 192 out of 200 and a fresh
certificate was also issued to her on 06-08-2001. The short form of the answer sheets, key answer, text book answer and the three experts opinion namely 1. Dr. S. Yadukulan, Reviewer of
Text Book - Biology, 2. Mr. P.V. Rajaraman, Post Graduate Teacher, Zoology Dept., Agarwal Matriculation School and 3. Mrs. Swarnalatha Rajeswari, PG Assistant - Zoology,
Corporation Hr. Sec. School for Girls, Chennai - 112 are given below:
Question No.
9
Question
When a normal women for normal vision marries a colour blind man, their F1 daughters will be?
Answer written by the candidate
Normal
Key Answer
Normal Carrier
Text Book Answer
Normal
Revaluation Result
The petitioner has answered wrongly. The correct answer is ""Normal Carrier"" but the petitioner has written as ""normal"". So one mark cannot be given as claimed by the petitioner. The
Hon''ble High Court, Madras in their order in W.P. No. 16196 of 2001 have held that ""Normal Carrier"" is the correct answer for Question No.9 of Bio-zoology.
Expert Opinion No.1
So ""normal"" is a correct answer and hence recommends for one additional mark
Expert Opinion No.2
The student has written as per the book answer and is the correct answer for awarding one mark
Expert Opinion No.3
Normal"" is a correct answer for awarding one mark
My brother, Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla while dealing with the question in W.P. No. 16196 of 2001 dated 04-12-2001, where the candidate has answered ""carrier"" but not mentioned the
word ""normal"". Hence, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the correct answer could be ""normal carrier"". In this case, the question is phenotype and not on genotype and it is
answered in a phenotypical form, it tallies with the text book also. It is appreciable if the petitioner written as ""normal carrier"" by including the genotypical expression, however the answer
normal"" is valid. As such not awarding any mark to the petitioner is invalid and she is entitled to one mark.
Question No.
22
Question
What is agglutination?
Answer written by the candidate
In blood transfusion, the antigen A produced against the Anti B causes clumping of cells and death. This is called Agglutination.
Key Answer
The Anti B antibody produced against the antigen A causes clumping of Cells.
Text Book Answer
A transfusion of type A blood to type B persons will result in clumping of blood cells and death. The antibody produced against the antigen A causes clumping of cells which is known as
Agglutination.
Revaluation Result
The question is what is Agglutination. The correct answer is ""During the blood transfusion of type A blood to a type B person, the anti-B Antibody produced against the antigen A, causes
clumping of cells, which is known as agglutination. But, the petitioner has written as ""In blood transfusion, the antigen A produced against the anti-B causes clumping of cells and death. This is
called agglutination."" Hence, one mark is reduced from the already awarded two marks.
Expert Opinion No.1
Nil
Expert Opinion No.2
The student has mentioned antigen-A against antibody B is the absolutely correct answer. Hence, deduction of one mark is not valid
Expert Opinion No.3
Nil
An antigen is a substance which is capable of stimulating the production of specific antibody. An antibody is a specific substance produced in the blood serum in response to the stimulation of
foreign antigen. The petitioner has written the antigen A produced against the anti B antibody, which is not absolutely right because B antibody produced against the antigen A and not vice-
versa, hence deduction of one mark is valid. On comparision with the text book, the answer written by the petitioner is not correct. I am not suggesting any additional mark.
Question No.
31
Question
What is Haemophilia? Explain?
Answer written by the candidate
The failure in the blood clotting mechanism is called Haemophilia
Explanation :-
Haemophilia is caused by the recessive sex linked gene present in the X-chromosome....
This hereditary disease is common in males and is rare in famales
The recessive X-linked gene for haemophilia follows criss cross pattern inheritance such as gene for color blindness.
Key Answer
(i) Reported by John cotto
(ii) Sex linked gene in X-chromosome produces substanced need for normal Blood clot
(iii) Mutant genes - Leads to Haemophilia
(iv) Commonly occurs in Males, Rarely in females
(v) Criss cross us heritance
Text Book Answer
....
The genes in sex chromosomes are responsible for certain phenotypic characters and the inheritance is known as sex linked inheritance.
Color blindness in human beings is caused by recessive gene present in the X chromosome
Haemophilia - caused by a recessive gene present in the X Chromosome
The inheritance follows a criss cross pattern.
Revaluation Result
The petitioner has not written the points (i) John Cotto (ii) Mutent genes - Leads to Haemophilia
Expert Opinion No.1
In the key mutant gene leads to Haemophilia is present.
Haemophilia is caused by recessive gene present in the X Chromosome.
Both answers are correct and recommends for awarding additional one mark
Expert Opinion No.2
The student has written as per book answer. Hence additional one marks should be given.
Expert Opinion No.3
In Key, mutant gene is present - The student has mentioned recessive gene. It is well understood that the mutant gene is recessive and the recessive gene is equal to mutant gene. Haemophilia
caused by a recessive gene present in the X Chromosome. Hence, recommends for additional one mark.
i. This is a five marks short note question on Haemophbilia, necessary to mention the reporter''s name ""John Cotto"" but not mentioned by the candidate, hence the deduction of one mark is
valid.
ii. From the Text Book of Pathology by William Boyd in Page No.435, it is seen that the genes are remarkably stable but as each gene is made up of millions of atoms, it is natural that
occasionally a re-arrangement of the atoms may occur giving the gene fresh properties. Such a change is called Mutant. Therefore, haemophilia may be originated from a mutant gene and the
petitioner has written (i) Haemophilia is caused by the recessive sex linked gene present in the X-chromosome (ii) Hereditary disease is common in males and is rare in famales and (iii) The
recessive X-linked gene for haemophilia follows criss cross pattern inheritance. But, the petitioner has not written that ""mutant genes leads to Haemophilia"". Hence, refusal to award any marks
during re-valuation is justified as such I am also not suggesting for any additional mark.
Question No.
34
Question
Write an Essay on ABO Blood Groups?
Answer written by the candidate
deleted
Key Answer
i. Multiple allele
ii. Land Steiner- ABO Blood Groups
iii. Antigen or agglutinogen
iv. Codominants
v. Antibody or agglutinins
vi. Aglutination
vii. Universal donor - O Blood group
viii. Universal recepient - AB Blood group
ix. ABO Blood group chart
x. Applications
a. In Blood transfusion
b. In criminology
c. To solve disputed parentage
Text Book Answer
deleted
Revaluation Result
The petitioner has not totally written the ""application of blood groups"" which carries 2 marks as per key. However, the other points written by the petitioner are eligible towards 8 marks only
as per the key. But, the petitioner has been awarded 9 marks on valuation. Since, this question deserves only 8 (eight) marks, excessively awarded one mark on valuation is reduced on re-
valuation.
Expert Opinion No.1
-----
Expert Opinion No.2
The student has written all the key points in this answer. Hence, reduction of one mark is not valid. For this particular question, the student has written more than the key points and the answer
was fully completed. So full marks (10 marks) must be given. So deduction of one mark is not valid.
Expert Opinion No.3
All key points are available in the answer paper. Application is clearly mentioned along with the answer paper. Two application in one sentence. The student has mentioned blood transfusion
and use in medical sciences. Hence, deduction of one mark is not valid.
The petitioner has written all the points as given in the key except for application of ABO Blood group. The petitioner is called upon to write any two applications, but the petitioner has written
as ""Blood transfusion are important in medical science"" which is only one application. The remaining application is not mentioned, for which reduction of one mark is suffice. The marks given in
re-valuation is eight marks. I suggest for granting one additional mark.
Question No.
35 (B)
Question
Explain any two non-communicable diseases?
Answer written by the candidate
i) Stroke (detailed answer)
ii) RHD (detailed answer)
Key Answer
i. Definition of the diseases
ii. Risk factor
iii. Symptoms
iv. Prevention and control
Text Book Answer
Stroke
i. Definition of the diseases
ii. Risk factor
iii. Prevention and control
RHD
i. Definition
ii. Symptom
iii. Preventive measures
Revaluation Result
The petitioner has wrongly written the description of stroke as ""the Cerebral function is due to stenosis occulsion and rupture of arteries"". But the correct description is ""The Disturbance of
cerebral function is caused by abnormalities such as stenosis occulsion and rupture of the arteries"". She has not written the following points.
i) Stroke can occur at any age
ii) Control of diabetes under control and preventive measures
Hence the petitioner deserves no additional marks in biology as requested by her.
Expert Opinion No.1
-----
Expert Opinion No.2
The student has written all the key points for this answer, hence additional one mark should be given. The student has covered all the key points and the answer was fully completed for Stroke
and RHT. Hence five marks should be given for each disease. There is no possibility for reduction of one mark. Hence, for this question, additional one mark should be given.
Expert Opinion No.3
All key points are written in the answer paper and hence recommends for five additional marks.
The petitioner has written non-communicable disease and description except` the correct description of Stroke is i.e., the disturbance of cerebral function is caused by abnormalities such as
stenosis occlusion and rupture of the arteries, but the petitioner has wrongly written cerebral function (instead of dysfunction) is due to stenosis occlusion and rupture of arteries, hence
deduction of one mark is valid and awarding nine marks out of ten marks is justifiable. I am not suggesting any additional mark to this question.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions in support of his case:-
i) Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others, wherein it was held in Para-17 as follows:
Students who have passed their intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the
intermediate board examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text books. Those text books support the case of the
students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students
for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.
In view of the judgment that the textbooks support the case of the students fully which is beyond the realm of doubt and as such it would not be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an
answer which accords with the key answer. Following the same, I have awarded the answers in comparision with the text books.
ii) Miss Uma Pattnaik and Others Vs. Convenor, M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Selection Board-cum-Principal, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack and Others, :wherein in Para-6, it has been held thus:-
In respect of large number of questions, the petitioners have asserted that the key answers given are not correct. Volumes of materials have been placed for our consideration. Though the
petitioners are correct that there is divergence of opinion as regards correctness of the key answers, we do not think it necessary to refer to all of them because even the experts on whose
opinions the petitioners have relied have accepted that when the key answers indicated are correct, but the answers suggested by mistake or nearly correct. In such case, the key answer
adopted by the examining body has to be accepted. Where, however, alternative answers are correct, merely because examining body had adopted one of them to be correct answer cannot
deprive a candidate who has answered alternative correct answer cannot be denied a mark (sic). In respect of Question No.44, we feel that the key answer indicated is not the only correct
answer.
The Division Bench of Orissa High Court has also followed the decision cited supra i.e., Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others, : while arriving at the same decision and
this judgment is also applicable to the case on hand.
Mr. Thirumavalavan, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the respondents relied on the below mentined judgment in support of his case.
i) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, wherein in Para No.29 it has been held thus:-
Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defasive of the same. As has been repeatedly
pointed out by this Court, 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 will 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 and 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 a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the court
should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice.
It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.
In the above case, the Honourable Apex Court has cautioned that 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. So, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that for the process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks under regulation does not attract the
principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the examinees is involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be carried to
such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to
verifythe correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper fair valuation of
the answers by the examiners. In this case, the respondents have allowed re-valuation hence I follow the Judgment of Apex Court of India in Kanpur University Case.
Following the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, I have awarded two additional marks (each one mark to Question Nos. 9 and 34) for the reasons mentioned supra.
Though the writ petition has been filed for a limited relief of directing the respondents herein to cause the production of details regarding revaluation marks and the manner in which the
revaluation was done, the respondents have submitted the details of evaluation after filing this writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed this Court to mould the
prayer to the extent to direct the 1st respondent to award additional marks to the petitioner and consequently issue a fresh mark sheet to that effect and to direct the 3rd respondent herein to
consider the case of the petitioner in respect of the admission to M.B.B.S. Course.
In view of the above, I direct the 1st respondent herein to give additional two marks to the petitioner herein in Biology subject and to issue a fresh mark sheet to that effect forthwith. The
3rd respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of admission in M.B.B.S. Course based on the revised marks as per merits.
This writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also closed.