AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. SK. Muktar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. TC. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the SEBA.
The son of the petitioner Koushik Kalita appeared in the HSLC Examination, 2017 from Chandi Medhi Balika Bidyalaya Narayanpur, Mukalmua in
the Nalbari District. The result revealed that Koushik Kalita secured First division with distinction and letter marks in all the six subjects with an
overall percentage of 96.16% and he has secured total marks 577 out of 600. According to the petitioner
his son had secured only 3(three) marks less than the 10th position holder and accordingly, if he gets 3(three) more marks, he would also get the 10th
position.
Being not satisfied, the answer scripts were sought for under the RTI Act. When the answer scripts were received, it was found that in respect of
question No. 20 of the Social Science paper, it has two parts and no mark was awarded in respect of the second part. It was noticed that in respect of
question No. 23 of the Assamese subject, which was, in fact, an objective type question, which can have only one correct answer, the son of the
petitioner was given 1 mark out of 2 marks. According to the petitioner, if it is an objective type question, the examiner can give either full marks or no
marks at all and it cannot be a situation where something less than full marks can be given by the respondents. The petitioner also tries to refer to
question No. 5(gha) of the Assamese Paper, which according to the petitioner is a correct answer, but the authorities have given him only 1 out of 2.
It is noticed that the question has two parts and the total marks allotted was 5 with a breakup of 3+2 and in the answer script, only 3 marks was
given and, therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that no marks were given in the second part which carries 2 marks.
The respondent SEBA has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, a stand has been taken that the particular examiner had
given a total marks 3 out of 5 marks in respect of question No. 20 without specifying the breakup. According to the SEBA, the son of the petitioner is
entitled to 3 marks out of 5 in respect of question No.20.
In order to ascertain the said stand, it has been taken note of that in respect of question Nos. 26 and 27 also there are two parts having a total
marks of 4 each, with a breakup of 1+3. The answer script reveals that in respect of question Nos. 26 and 27, the son of the petitioner was given 4 out
of 4 marks without indicating any breakup. Therefore, the stand of the Board is accepted that this particular examiner has given full marks out of the
total marks without indicating the breakup.
In respect of question No. 23 of the Assamese subject, which is in fact an objective type question, this Court sees no reason as to how the Board
can give 1 mark out of 2, when the answer is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, it has to be two out of two and if it is incorrect it has to be 0
out of 2. But it is difficult to substantiate with reason as to how one mark can be given out of 2 in an objective type question, which either has a
correct or an incorrect answer.
Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the SEBA states that the Board would look into the question and if the answer to the objective type
of question is correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the full marks in respect of that question.
As regards the other assertion raised that question No. 5(gha) of the Assamese paper was correctly written by the petitioner but incorrectly marked
out by the examiner, this Court is of the view that the academic expertise to evaluate the correct answer is not available and as such no adjudication
can be made on the contention raised that the answer given by the son of the petitioner was the right answer. However, it is left to the wisdom of the
Board to give a reasonable consideration to the same and pass an appropriate order thereon.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.