Disposed

Stuti Parashar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2020WP(C)/185/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition seeking re-evaluation of answer scripts in English and Logic & Philosophy. The Court directed the Council to identify who reduced marks for a specific question and clarified that a scrutinizer lacks the power to deduct marks, reserving such authority for the Head Examiner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Council to ascertain who reduced the marks and restore 4 marks if the reduction was done by a scrutinizer; prohibited further mark reduction.

Stuti Parashar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010005012019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 185/2019

¶5

1:STUTI PARASHAR

¶6

D/O- SRI GOPAL SARMA, VILL AND P.S- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781326

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPTT OF EDUCATION, DISPUR, GHY- 06

¶10

2:ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY- 21

¶11

3:THE SECRETARY ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY- 21

¶12

4:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY- 21

¶13

5:THE PRINCIPAL K K HANDIQUE JR COLLEGE PATHSALA BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78132

¶14

Page No.# 2/9

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P THAKURIA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH JUDGMENT

¶19

11-02-2020

¶20

Heard Mr. P. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Roy, learned counsel for the AHSEC for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, Mr. R. Thadani, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Ms. N.M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department.

¶21

In this petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-authorities to reevaluate the answer scripts of two subjects, namely, English and Logic & Philosophy. Shorn of the detail facts, it would suffice to say that the petitioner is aggrieved in respect of certain marks given in English subject as well as in Logic & Philosophy subject in the Higher Secondary Final Examination, 2018 of Arts Stream under the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Assam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’), in which examination she had performed commendably well scoring 475 marks out of 500 with aggregate 95% (which has been considered as distinction) in the said examination. Though, the petitioner came out in the said examination with flying colours, the petitioner was expecting more marks and accordingly, applied for copies of the answer scripts in respect of the aforesaid two subjects by filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶22

Accordingly, on perusal of the answer scripts as made available to the petitioner by the

¶23

Page No.# 3/9

¶24

Council authorities, the petitioner felt that she was under evaluated and that she was given less marks than what she deserved.

¶25

The following is one of the questions in which the petitioner feels that she ought to have been given more marks than what she has been given.

¶26

In respect of question No.4 in English subject to which the petitioner thinks that she has been given less mark, the question is as follows:

¶27

“4. Write a letter to the Editor of The Telegraph, complaining about the noise pollution in your locality drawing the attention of the Government to take steps to check the same. Sign as Mohan/Anjali, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. 10”

¶28

Against the said question’s answer, the petitioner was awarded 5 marks. Subsequently, the said 5 marks was enhanced to 6 marks by the scrutinizer, who awarded one more mark later, as reflected in the front page of the answer script. In other words, in respect of the said Question No.4, the petitioner was awarded 6 marks out of 10 marks, which is more than what was initially given to her, i.e. 5 marks.

¶29

The aforesaid question is subjective one and as such, it may not be appropriate for this Court to assess whether she was given less mark or not as claimed by her. Moreover, as mentioned above, she was given one more mark than what was initially assigned to her by the evaluator and as such, this Court is of the view that this Court may not entertain this plea of the petitioner as far as the Question No. 4 is concerned.

¶30

As regards another question i.e., Question No.9, the question is as follows:

¶31

Page No.# 4/9

¶32

“9. Rewrite any four of the sentences as directed:

¶33

(a)This is one of the best colleges in the North.

¶34

(Change it into comparative degree)

¶35

(b) You are richer than I.

¶36

(Make it negative without changing the meaning)

¶37

¶38

(Make it affirmative without changing the meaning)

¶39

(d) We heard of her failure (Make it a complex sentence )

¶40

(e) He admitted that he had done wrong. (Make it a simple sentence)

¶41

(f) Unless you work hard, you will fail. (Make it a compound sentence)

¶42

The petitioner answered the Question No.9 (a) to 9 (c) & 9(f), as follows:

¶43

“Ans. to Q No.9-

¶44

(a) This is better than most other colleges in the North.

¶45

(b) I am not as rich as you.

¶46

¶47

(f) You must work hard or you will fail.”

¶48

In respect of the aforesaid answers given, the petitioner has not been given any marks in respect of answer 9(b) and answer 9 (f).

¶49

Without expressing any opinion, this Court is of the view that perhaps the examiner

¶50

could have awarded some marks in respect of the answers given to Questions 9(b) and 9(f). However, this Court also refrains from giving any opinion and would leave it to the authority concerned to re-examine whether the petitioner can be awarded marks in respect of the aforesaid Questions 9 (b) and 9 (f).

¶51

The observation of the Council, however, is that the Question No. 9 was based on

¶52

grammar, but two question’s answers i.e. 9 (b) & 9 (f) given by the petitioner were wrong

¶53

according to the instructions given to the Examiner by the Council and as it was found that

¶54

the Examiner strictly followed the instructions of the Council, the re-checker did not find any necessity to increase the mark.

¶55

This Court is of the view that the answers to these questions can be more than one

¶56

and if the answers given by the petitioner falls under any of the correct possible answers,

¶57

Page No.# 5/9

¶58

there is no reason why the petitioner should not be given due credit for the correct answers if

¶59

given. However, this Court does not wish to make any observation as to the correctness of

¶60

the answers given by the petitioner in question 9(b) and 9(f) and would leave it to the

¶61

Council to re-examine again as to whether the petitioner could be given any mark in respect of the aforesaid two answers in 9(b) & 9(f), if these are found to be possible correct answers.

¶62

As regards Question No.14, it has been submitted that the petitioner has already been

¶63

given full marks for the answer given in the said question and as such, no further examination is required.

¶64

In respect of Question No.23 in Logic & Philosophy subject to which the petitioner

¶65

thinks that she has been given less mark, the said question reads as follows:

¶66

“23. Explain very briefly four advantages of experiment over

¶67

observation. 4”

¶68

The answer given by the petitioner is as follows:

¶69

“Ans. to question No.23

¶70

Four advantage of experiment over observation are as follows:-

¶71

(i) An experiment can be repeated according to our necessity and it allows us to add as much instances as we need.

¶72

(ii) Experiment enables us to illustrate a particular event from scientific point of view.

¶73

(iii) Experiment enables us to isolate a particular thing. (iv) Experiment enables us to examine a particular event with calm and compose manner.”

¶74

As regards this answer given by the petitioner, the petitioner was initially awarded 4

¶75

marks by the subject expert but subsequently, 2 marks were reduced. As regards this

¶76

deduction in marks, the explanation given by the Council is based on the opinion given by the

¶77

subject expert that the deduction of marks from 4 to 2 against the Question No. 23 of the

¶78

subject of Logic and Philosophy was not done at the time of rechecking but it was done

¶79

during the process of evaluation, scrutinisation and finalization. It has been further clarified

¶80

Page No.# 6/9

¶81

that during the time of evaluation the subject expert verified the matter and the subject

¶82

expert was convinced that the petitioner had written only the points and not the explanation and accordingly, the petitioner was awarded 2 marks because of not writing full and proper explanation as was asked in the Question No.23.

¶83

This Court has perused para-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent

¶84

nos. 2, 3 & 4 in which the procedure followed in evaluating the exam papers has been clearly mentioned. Para-5 is quoted below:

¶85

“5. that with regard to the statement made in Paragraph-4 to the writ petition, the deponent states that the examiners are authorized persons to evaluate the answer scripts and only experienced teachers are appointed as examiners. A scripts after being evaluated by an examiner it is scrutinized by a more experienced scrutinizers under the supervision of a Head Examiner who himself scrutinizers a portion of the answer scripts. No doubt there may be variation in awarding marks from examiner to examiner. No full proof methodology can be applied in the manner of examination of papers. The petitioner’s expectation to get rank is her own assessment of answer scripts. If such stand of the petitioner is to be scrutinized, there will be no end to such litigation. Some differences from examiner to examiner in the standards of making, since subjectivity cannot be overrules in manual evaluation. It is true that evaluation of two persons of same answer scripts cannot be equal on golden scales.”

¶86

The aforesaid explanation is based on Regulation 29 of the Regulations for Conduct of

¶87

Higher Secondary Examinations, which reads as follows:

¶88

“29(iii) If a result of examination as aforesaid he finds any under-marking or over-marking in any paper he may add or deduct, as the case may be, such marks as he deems justified provided that total addition or deduction shall not exceed 10% of the total marks of the paper.”

¶89

After perusal of the aforesaid Regulation as well as the explanation proffered by the

¶90

Council, one may examine the duties of the scrutiniser which are provided under the

¶91

Regulation 31 which reads as follows:

¶92

“Duties of Scrutinisers:

¶93

It shall be the duty of the scrutinizer to ensure that –

¶94

(i) the total number of questions answered does not exceed the number required to be answered,

¶95

Page No.# 7/9

¶96

(ii) no answer has been marked twice, (iii) no extra answer has been taken into account, (iv) no answer has been given more marks than allotted to it, (v) no answer remains un-evaluated, (vi) there has been no mistake in the totaling, (vii) marks recorded inside the scripts are duly entered in the proforma in the front cover,

¶97

(viii) marks in answer scripts tally with the marks in the mark-sheet, (ix) no mark is altered by him in any answer script and marksheets,

¶98

(x) any discrepancy is brought to the notice of the Head Examiner/Chief Scrutiniser for necessary action. the scrutinizer shall do any other duties of like nature as may be allotted by the Head Examiner/Chief Scrutiniser. He shall maintain strict secrecy about his work.”

¶99

The power given to the Scrutinisers, which is of relevance to us, is to be found at

¶100

Regulation 31(iv), which provides that it is the duty of the scrutinizer to see that no answer

¶101

has been given more marks than allotted to it. In the opinion of this Court, the marks allotted to it means the total marks allotted for that particular question i.e. in respect of Question

¶102

No.23 i.e. 4 marks. In other words, if any examiner had given more marks than 4, which is

¶103

the maximum mark, the scrutinizer would rectify it, but no power is given to the scrutinizer to reduce the marks already given by the examiner. That perhaps could be done only by the Head Examiner or Chief Scrutiniser as provided under the Regulation 29 of the Regulations.

¶104

However, in the present case, the Council has not specifically averred that the said

¶105

reduction of marks from 4 to 2 in respect of answer given by the petitioner to Question No.23 was done by the Head Examiner/Chief Scrutiniser and the Scrutiniser could not have done it.

¶106

If the said reduction was done by the scrutinizer from 4 marks to 2 marks that perhaps would

¶107

be beyond his jurisdiction, which fact however is not clearly explained in the para-5 of the

¶108

affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Council referred to above.

¶109

In fact, with regard to the Question No.23, the explanation given by the Council is

¶110

Page No.# 8/9

¶111

reflected in para-7 & 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which read as follows:

¶112

“7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-6 to writ petition, the deponent denies the same and in t his connection the deponent states that the examiners concerned awarded marks to the petitioner against Q. No.4 & 9 of English and Q. No.23 of Logic & Philosophy as per her standard of answering, corrections etc.

¶113

That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-7 to the writ petition, the deponent states that the petitioner could not write her application under Q. No.4 of English as expected by the examiner and in Q. No.9 of English the petitioner gave 2 (two) correct answers out of 4 (four) and accordingly, the examiner awarded marks to the petitioner. Likewise the petitioner could not answer properly against Q. No.23 of Logic & Philosophy and hence, she secured less marks.”

¶114

Accordingly, as far as the issue raised by the petitioner as regards reevaluation in respect of Question No.23 of Logic & Philosophy subject is concerned, this Court would direct the Council authorities to ascertain as to who had reduced marks to 2 in place of 4 marks earlier awarded to the petitioner by the examiner. If it was done by the scrutinizer, he certainly did not have the authority to do so under the Regulation. If so, such reduction could not have been made by the Scrutinizer as it was only within the authority of the Head

¶115

Examiner or Chief Scrutiniser as mentioned above, in which event she would have to be awarded 4 marks for the said question.

¶116

Accordingly, the Council will decide the issue in terms of the allotment of the marks to Question No. 23, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get 4 marks or not, which was initially given to her by the Examiner.

¶117

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the Council authority within a period of 1

¶118

(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and it shall intimate the

¶119

Page No.# 9/9

¶120

result thereof to the petitioner.

¶121

If in the aforesaid process, the petitioner gets more marks than what she was given, obviously necessary correctional measures shall be taken by the Council in all the relevant

¶122

certificates/documents. However, it is made very clear that while undertaking the exercise

¶123

referred to above, no reduction of marks will be permissible than already allotted to the petitioner.

¶124

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶125

JUDGE

¶126

Comparing Assistant

Stuti Parashar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stuti Parashar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hajera Begum Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sunam Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Hussain Ahmed Mazumder Vs Sanjib Kumar Bhuyan and Anr.

Mrs. Rashmi Rekha Devi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Amlangshu Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ganeswar Saharia Vs Prahlad Ch. Das and 3 Ors.