THE SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATIONversusAYAN DAS AND ORS.

                                                                              \

                                                                              -\
A      THE SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER
                  SECONDARY EDUCATION
                                      V.

                          AYAN DAS AND ORS.

B                         SEPTEMBER 28, 2007

          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]


         Education-Re-assessment of answer scripts of examination-
C   In absence of statutory provisions-Permissibility-Held: Such re-
    assessment is a rarity-It is permissible only in exceptional cases viz.
    non-evaluation of some question or evaluation being contrary to the
    norms fixed by examining body.

D        The question for consideration in the present appeal is regarding
    permissibility of re-assessment in the absence of statutory provision;
    the Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court had directed
    such reassessment.

E        Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: The orders of Single Judge and the Division Bench ofHigh
    Court cannot be sustained and stand quashed. The courts normally
    should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by
    the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some
F   question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done
    contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. Such examination
    would be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases.
                              [Paras 7, 8 and 9) [468-B; 466-H; 467-A; HJ
         Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
G   Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors., [1984] 4
    SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service
    Commission, Patna and Ors., (2004] 6 SCC 714; Board of Secondary
    Education v. Pravas Ra11fan Panda andAnr., (2004) 13 714 and President,
    Board ofSecondary Education, Orissa andAnr. v. D. Suvankar andAnr.,
H                                    464
l     SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER 465
     SECONDARYEDUCATIONv. AYANDAS [PASAYAT,J.]
    [2007) 1 sec 603, relied on.                                               A
        Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., AIR (1983)
    SC 1230, referred to.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4560 of
    2007.                                                       B
         From the Judgment and Order dated 15.6.2005 of the High Court
    at Calcutta in MAT No. 1533/2005.
>
         Shipra Ghose for the Appellant.
        Rauf Rahim, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma and Rajeev c
    Sharma for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division D
    Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing re-examination of answer
    script of respondent No. I in English Paper I.
         3. The brief facts in nut shell are as follows:
          Respondent No. I passed the Madhyamik (Secondary) Examination E
    conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education·
    in 2004. Respondent No.2 is the father of respondent No. I. As a matter
    of Post-Publication Scrutiny of results of Higher Secondary Examination
    2004 the marks of respondent No. I in Physics (Theory) Paper-II were
    increased by two marks. A Writ Petition was filed by respondent No. I F
    for a direction to the Council-Appellant to produce the answer scripts of
    respondent No. I in several papers. The said such answer scripts were
    produced before the court pursuant to the direction given on 2 I. I2.2004,
    on respondent No. I depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the Council.
    The matter was adjourned to 27. I .2005, and opportunity was given to G
    learned counsel for respondent No.I to inspect the answer scripts. On
    27.1.2005, learned Single Judge directed to preserve the answer scripts
    and directed to issue fresh marksheet incorporating in English Paper-I,
    the additional marks which, it transpired during the inspection, were not
    awarded to him for correct answer. In terms of this direction, fresh H
    466            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A   marksheet was issued to respondent No. I. Further supplementary affidavit
    was filed by respondent No. I in terms of liberty granted by learned Single
    Judge. It appears that learned Single Judge directed that paper, in
    question, be re-assessed by another examiner. The objection of the
    Council- Appellant that there is no such provision for re-examination was
B   ovenuled by learned Single Judge. The Council-Appellant pointed ou,t that
    no specific error in assessment was pointed out by respondent No. I,
    though he had been granted liberty to do so. It was pointed out that there
    is no provision in any statute permitting such inspection, but in view of
    the direction given by learned Single Judge, inspection was granted.
c        An appeal was filed by the Appellant-Council questioning the
    direction given by learned Single Judge. The Division Bench by the
    impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that Judges themselves have
    looked the answer script and were satisfied that there was scope of re-
    assessment.
D
          4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that course adopted
    by learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, is without
    legal sanctity.
          5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 - State supported the stand
E   of the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted
    that they have nothing further to submit and do not want to contest than
    what was noted by the High Court.
         6. The permissibility of re-assessment in the absence of statutory
    provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of
F
    such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
    Secondary Education & Anr v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors.,
  reported in [I 984] 4 SCC 27. It was observed in the said case that finality
  has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory
  provision, Court cannot direct re-assessment/re-examination of answer
G scripts.

       7. The courts normally should not direct the production of answer
  scripts to be inspected by the wrifpetitioners unless a case is made out
  to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the
H evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining
      /     SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER 467
           SECONDARY EDUCATION v. AYAN DAS [PASAYAT, J.]
-i.       body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model A ·
          answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court
          that model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Board.
          Then only the court can ask the production of answer scripts to allow
          inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University
          and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., AIR (1983) SC 1230 it was held B
          as follows:-
                " 16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University,
                contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the
                correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.
                We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct C
                unless it is proved to be wrong and that it would not be held to be
                wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
                rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that
                is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed
                in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention D
                of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of
                acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students
                in U.P. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answer
                given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
                                                                                       E
                17. 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 F
                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 penalize the
                students for not giving an answer which accords with the key G
                answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to
                be wrong".
               8. Same would be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional
          cases. The principles set out in Maharashtra Board' case (supra) has
          been followed subse·quently in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman H
    468           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 10 S.C.R.


A Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors., (2004] 6 SCC 714,                   'r-
  Board ofSecondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr., (2004)
  13 714 and President, Board ofSecondary Education, Orissa and Anr.
  v. D. Suvankar and Anr., [2007] l SCC 603.
       9. In view of the settled position in law, the orders ofleamed Sjngle
B Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained and stand quashed.
          10. In Suvankar's case (supra) it was inter-alia observed as
    follows:
           "5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed
C          by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
           Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh
           Kurmarsheth. etc., AIR (1984) SC 1543, it is in the public interest
           that the results Public examinations when published should have
           some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the
D          presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as
           of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly
           in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides
           leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour
           and time involved in the process. The Court should be extremely
E          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 would be
F          wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic
           approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual
           realities erid 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 pragmatic one were to be
G          propounded. In the above pr~mises, it is to be considered how
           far the Board has assured a zero defect system of evaluation, or a
           system which is almost fool-proof'.
          11. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
H K.K.T.                                                       Appeal allowed.