In this Writ Appeal challenging the rejection of a petition to re-evaluate a minor's Tamil answer sheet, the High Court held that no case is made out for interference. The court dismissed the appeal and agreed with the Single Judge that the respondent acted properly.
The Writ Appeal was dismissed against order; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
Gnanadeepa V (Minor) Represented by her father I.Vedhakkan (Natural Guardian)
.. Appellant
Versus
1/6
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
Prayer :
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the impugned order, dated 15.06.2023 made in W.P.No.17685 of 2023 and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mrs.Balamuki.S for M/s.R.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, Government Advocate for RR-1 to 3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mrs.Balamuki.S, learned Counsel for Mr.R.Prabhakaran,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Judge in W.P.No.17685 of 2023, dated 15.06.2023. The appellant had filed the Writ Petition seeking direction to the first respondent to re-evaluate the 10th Standard answer sheet of the appellant's daughter. It is the case of the appellant that his daughter, who is a minor, was declared failed in Tamil subject in the 10th Standard board exam with 21 marks out of 100. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the fifth respondent
2/6
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
had personal vengeance against his daughter because she rejected his marriage proposal. The fifth respondent, on 06.04.2023, entered into the exam hall and manipulated the invigilator by falsely claiming to be the son of a Tamil teacher. The fifth respondent snatched the answer sheet of the appellant's daughter without following the roll number in order and also struck off the answer sheet. Hence, the appellant's daughter was not awarded good marks. The learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect in its correct perspective.
appellant's daughter appeared for the paper of Tamil subject in the supplementary exams held in the month of June, 2023. In the said exam also, she failed securing only 19 marks. In the month of April, 2023, the appellant's daughter secured 21 marks.
However, for the first time, the complaint seems to have been lodged on 27.05.2023, after the result is declared of the appellant's daughter having failed in Tamil subject.
3/6
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
case is made out for interference.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.13074 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 11.12.2023 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs
4/6
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
5/6
W.A.No.1330 of 2023
11.12.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether re-evaluation of a failed student's answer sheet calling for personal vengeance against the student is legally tenable.
Whether the order of the Single Judge declining to interfere with the board examination results warrants constitutional scrutiny.
GNANADEEPA V.
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
