MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR. versus PARITOSH BHUPESH KUMAR SHETH ETC.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 17-07-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
MAHARASHTRA s·TATE BOARD OF SbCONDARY 
AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION 
ANDANR. 
v • 
PARITOSH BHUPESH KUMAR SHETH ET 
July 17, 1984 
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.) 
Education laws-Right to demand by an exam/nee an inspection, verifica-
tion and revaluation of answer books-Constitutional validity of Regulation 
I 04(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards 
Regulations, 1977 negativing such righu-Princip/e of natural justice under 
education laws, explained-Delegated legislation and Court.• power to interpre1-
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965 Sections 19 
and 36-Rules of interpretation of Rules and RegulaJion.v, explained. 
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Maharashtra 
Second3ry and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965, the State Board has 
framed the Maharashtra Secondary and .Higher Secondary Education Boards' 
Regulations 1977. These regulations were sanctioned by the State Govern-
ment uader sub-section 3 of section 36 on I Ith July, 1977 and came inlo 
force on lSth June. 1971. These regulations were applied to the SecondJry 
School Certificate examination and Higher Secondary Certificate examination 
held in October, 1977 and thereafter Regulation 104 refers to verific.:!tion of 
marks obtained by a candidate in a subject. Clause (1) thereof restricts 
verification to checking whether all the answers have 
been 
~xamined 
and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each 
question in that ~ubject and transferring marks co1rectly on the first cover 
page of the answer book and. whether the supplements attached to the 
answer book mentioned by the candidate are in tact. Clause ( 1) al~o speaks 
of revaluation and prohibits revaluation of the answer books or supplements. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Clause (3) of the said regulation also speaks of right to claim revaluation by 
G 
an examinee and is to the effect : "no candidate sh~ll claim, or be e~titled to 
revaluation of his anwer or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or 
other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most 
confidential. 
~ number t;tf 
~sqccessfql and disappointed 
ca~did~tes wtio 
h~d 
H 
A 
B 
c 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] ] S.C.R. 
appeared for 
the Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School 
Certificate public examinations conducted by the Divisional Boards function~ 
ing under the supervision and control of the Mabara~htra State Board of 
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education filed a batch of 39 Writ 
Petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Clauses 
(J) and (3) of regulation 104 of lhc Maharashtra Secondary and Higher 
Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 and seeking the issuance of 
writs directing the Board to allow them disclosure and inspection of their 
answer books in the public examination, the results whereof had already 
been published and to conduct a revaluation of fUCh of the answer papers as 
the petitioners may d~mand after the inspection. 
The writ petitioners had based their challengs against the validity of 
clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104 on three main grounds :-(1) The 
Impugned clauses were violative of the principles of natural justice; (2) Both 
clnuses (1) and (3) were ultra vires and void on the ground of their being in 
excess of the regulation making powers conferred on the 81)aid by Section 
D 
36 of the Act; and (3) The impugned provisions contained in clauses (I) and 
(3) were highly unreasonable and since the regulations fra11_1ed by the Board 
are in the nature of bye-laws, they are liable to be struck down on the 
ground of unreasonableness. 
E 
F 
H 
The High Court divided the Writ Petitions into two groups; the first 
group consisting of cases where the right of inspection alone was claimed 
and second 
group 
compr1s1ng 
of cases 
where 
the 
petitioners had 
claimed also a further right to demand a revaluation of the answer papers. 
The High Court allowed the petitions· by two separate judgments one in 
rrspect of the first group holding that clause (3) of regulation 104 which 
Jays down that no candidate shall be tntitled to disclosure or inspection of 
the anS\\'f'r books or other documents as these are to be treated as most 
confidential is ultra vires on the ground of its being in excess of the regula-
lion making power of the Board and by another judgment in the second 
group holding that the provisions contained in cl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.