AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides.
The petitioner has passed the Higher Secondary examination in March 2009 and scored 1079 marks, out of 1200 marks and he has scored the following marks in the subjects viz., Physics- 194, Chemistry- 188 and Biology- 188. Therefore, the cut off market scored by the petitioner was 189.5 marks. As the petitioner was very good at studies, he felt that he was awarded less marks in the subjects Chemistry and Biology and therefore, he applied for and received the key and answer sheet for chemistry and Biology papers and thereafter, applied for revaluation for the aforesaid two papers before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent awarded 5 more marks in the subject Biology whereas indicating how this five marks were awarded and for which questions the five marks were awarded and did not say anything about the revaluation of chemistry paper.
The 2nd respondent also issued the mark sheet by which the marks for the subject Biology was increased from 188 to 193. The total mark was thus increased from 1079 to 1084. On the basis of the revised mark sheet, the cut off mark scored by the petitioner became 192.0 and the petitioner was placed on 1651th rank in the Backward community State Level list prepared for M.B.B.S for the academic year 2009-2010.
As the chemistry paper was not revalued properly, the petitioner demanded for revaluation of the chemistry paper and that was replied by the 3rd respondent, by sending the impugned order, dated 01.07.2009, by which the petitioner was informed that his answer script bearing Reg. No. 152075 subject Computer Science were scrutinized and revalued and it is informed that there is no change in the marks already awarded.
Admittedly, the petitioner studied the subject chemistry and he has not studied the course of computer science and therefore, the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 01.07.2009 is challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the respondents have not applied their mind and without properly evaluating the subject chemistry paper, they have valued some other paper and hence, the valuation has to be done for the chemistry paper.
It is further submitted that by the petitioner in his affidavit that in so far as the chemistry paper is concerned, he has given his objection for the marks awarded in respect of the question Nos. 15,17 and 52 and according to the petitioner, though he has written correct answer, he was not given full marks. It has been stated in para 7 of the affidavit sworned by the father of the petitioner as follows"" I humbly submit that I would like to draw attention on the chemistry questions No. 15,17 and 52. My son has answered correctly for the above said questions, yet they were marked as wrong as the key set up by the 2nd and 3rd respondents itself is wrong. For example, the key for question No. 52 itself is wrong and therefore, my son would be eligible to be awarded with full five marks for wrong key. It happened due to the carelessness of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in revaluation/key set up, therefore marks in Chemistry papers of my son is reduced by 5 marks then, what it should be, If the chemistry paper is revalue then, my son would be getting 5 more marks and consequently, the total marks of Chemistry paper would be raised and from 188 to 193.
If so, the ratio for the cut off marks would also be increased pro-rata.
Similarly, the petitioner has also stated in respect of Biology paper, marks were not given to the questions No. 23, 28 and 36 and if the marks were awarded for the three questions he would have been given 8 marks instead of 5 marks and therefore, according to the petitioner, he ought to have been given 5 more marks in the subject chemistry and 3 more marks in the subject Biology and if so awarded, the total cut off marks of the petitioner would be 194.75, which is the cut off marks prescribed for Backward community and the petitioner would have been allowed free seat in the M.B.B.S. in the Government Colleges. In this circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ for the relief prayed for as stated above.
The 2nd respondent filed the counter affidavit stating that by mistake it has been stated in the impugned order that instead of subject chemistry, it was mentioned as computer science and at the request of the petitioner, the papers were revalued and in the first revaluation 5 marks were added in the subject Biology and in respect of chemistry paper, it was revalued initially by two valuators and according to them, the marks have properly given and thereafter, it was revalued by another set of valuators and they have added one mark each for the question No. 15 and 17 and so far as the question No. 52 is concerned, correct mark was given. The relevant portion in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent has stated in para 6 & 7 as follows:
I am to state that the answers of question Nos. 15 & 17 of the petitioner's chemistry answer script was revalued and each 1 marks for above question number have been awarded by the evaluators who revalued the petitioners chemistry answer script on 14.07.2009 itself. I also to state that the chemistry answer script of the petitioner was revalued once against by a team of three competent and experienced examiners and the revaluation was done on the basis of proper key answers only. As per the revaluation assessment report submitted by the above examiners for question number 15 and 17 each 1 mark was already awarded by the examiners.
As per the revaluation report submitted by the examiners the reasons for reducing 3 marks for the question number 52 are as follows: For "wrong substitution or mathematical details-2 marks reduced and for wrong answer-1 mark was reduced". Hence as per the report submitted by the examiners only 2 marks can be awarded and the full 5 marks for question number 52 cannot be awarded as contended in the affidavit. Hence, I am to state that a total of only 2 marks can be awarded in chemistry subject after revaluation and thus effecting the above changes, the mark in chemistry subject was amended as 190 from 188.
Similarly in respect of Biology paper, it has been stated in para 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent as follows:
I also humbly state that the petitioners Biology paper was first revalued as per the application submitted by the petitioner. A team of three competent and experienced teachers examined and revalued the petitioners Biology answer script. According to the revaluation assessment report submitted by evaluators an increase of 5(five) marks was awarded in the Bio-Zoology, a part of Biology subject and accordingly a corrected mark certificate already issued to the petitioner effecting the above change in marks as 193 from 188 in the mark certificate which was already issued to the petitioner.
It is further stated that this department has taken sincere effort to revalue the petitioner's Bio-zoology paper of the Biology answer script. A team of three examiners revalued the question Nos. 23,28, 36 and submitted that report. According to the report submitted by the examiners for question No. 23-two points as per key answer are found to be correct for which 2 x 1-1/2=3 marks can be awarded. For question number 28 a total of 2 marks can be awarded. For question number 36, according to the revaluation report 9 marks can be awarded which has been already awarded to the candidate. Hence a total of 5 marks (2 marks for question No. 23, 2 marks for question No. 28 and 1 mark for a question No. 36 can be awarded to the marks already given in the Bio-zoology, a part of Biology of the petitioner.
Therefore, Mr. R. Moharan, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted that twice the answer papers were revalued at the instance of the petitioner by two different groups of evaluators and as per the revaluation, the petitioner has secured 190 marks in chemistry and 193 marks in Biology and the contention of the petitioner, that he ought to have been awarded 8 marks in the biology paper cannot be accepted.
It has been further stated in the counter affidavit in para 11 as follows: The scheme of re-valuation/re-total was introduced to ensure fairness, transparency and accuracy in evaluation of answer script of the +2 candidates. The petitioner herein has claimed additional marks in the chemistry and Biology subjects by doing valuation once more. Even though the petitioner is not entitled for revaluation for second time, this department has taken sincere and earnest effort to revalue the above answer scripts one more time by the subject experts in the larger interest of the student community, and obtained an assessment report second time. The process of valuation should reach finality at one stage. Valuation of answer scripts cannot be done again and again in tune with the views expressed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any additional marks by means of revaluation of his answer scripts for second time in the above two subjects as the process of revaluation is already over.
Hence, Mr. R. Mohanran, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted that the request of the petitioner has been fairly conceded by the authorities and in respect of marks, awarded to certain questions as contended by the petitioner, it has been clarified and the respondents have also stated how the marks were increased for those questions and how the marks could not be increased as demanded by the petitioner for the questions.
Mr. Arunan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by reason of the two valuation marks have been increased from 188 to 190 for the subject chemistry and 188 to 193 for the subject biology and initially, the respondents maintained that there is no scope for credit in the subject chemistry and subsequently, they were added two more marks for the subject chemistry and these would prove that the valuation of answer script by the respondents is not free from doubt and hence, the answer paper of the petitioner in respect of subjects chemistry and biology must be revalued by the expert committee and if so it can be found that the petitioner is entitled to more marks in those two subjects and hence, the Court must order for revaluation, for two those subjects by an Expert Committee.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is the ambition of the petitioner and his parents that he must become a doctor and the petitioner nourished that desire for the past seven years and with that aim only he worked hard and by reason of the improper valuation of the papers by the respondents he was denied the opportunity of studying medical and hence, the court must direct revaluation of the two papers by an expert committee.
Though the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seems to be an attractive, having regard to the facts, which are available in the present case, I am not in a position to concede to the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In the affidavit the petitioner has raised his doubt in respect of three questions in the subject chemistry and they are the question Nos. 15, 17 and 52. In the subject biology, he questioned the marks awarded for the question Nos. 23,28 and 36. The doubts of the petitioner in respect of the marks awarded to those questions were clearly met by the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit and the petitioner is not able to say that even after the addition of marks awarded after revaluation, the revaluation was not proper in the sense that he has written the correct answer for those questions and be given full marks. For example in respect of question No. 52 in the subject chemistry it has been clearly stated by the respondents in the counter in para 7, which was extracted above.
Similarly, in respect of the Biology paper the respondents have given the reason for giving five more marks after revaluation in para 9 of the counter affidavit, which was entirely extracted above. Therefore, the respondents have taken every steps to value the papers correctly at the request of the petitioner and unfortunately even after revaluation the petitioner was not able to secure the minimum cut off mark for getting admission in M.B.B.S for which the respondents cannot be blamed.
Further the respondents are the competent persons to evaluate the answer given by the petitioner in each paper and in the absence of any other proof that the marks awarded by the respondents for those questions were not proper or the petitioner ought to have been given more marks for those subjects, this Court cannot re-appreciate or analyse the answer given by the petitioner in respect of those questions and the court is also not having expertise the required to do the same.
Hence, in the absence of any mala fide attributed against the respondents or in the absence of any positive proof that the petitioner deserves more marks for those questions, we will have to accept the revaluation of the answer papers made by the respondents and we cannot suggest our views, by saying how the answer should have been valued. This scope of judicial review is always limited to find out whether the process of decision making is fair and reasonable and this Court cannot sit on appeal and analyse the decision taken by the authorities, who are qualified and competent in the field of education. Of course, it is unfortunate that the petitioner is not able to secure admission for this years in the M.B.B.S. selection, as he has not secured the minimum cut off mark.
Hence, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.