THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ORISSA AND ANR. versus D. SUVANKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1143 · Decided: 14-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ORISSA AND A 
ANR. 
v. 
D. SUVANKAR AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Education-Conduct of examination by Board of Education-Mistakes 
in mark sheets issued-Plea of revaluation of answer sheets by examinee- C 
High Court holding that Board's Regulations do not provide for revaluation 
but imposed cost for the negligence of the Board-On appeal held: It is 
imperative on the Board to issue correct mark sheet to each candidate-
Board's Regulation does not provide for any revaluation but provides for 
addition of the marks-First mistake occurred due to wrong entry made by 
computer firm but the second correction was on the basis of prayer for D 
addition of marks-Thus, along with Computer Firm, Assistant Examiner and 
Scrutinizer negligent for their acts-However, Board cannot escape its 
liability-Order of High Court imposing cost on the Board upheld but major 
amount to be recovered from, computer firm. 
Education-Examination by Hoard of Education-Conduct of-Selection E 
of examiners by Board and evaluation of answer sheets by examiners-
Guidelines stated. 
Respondent No. 1 appeared in the examination conducted by the appellant-
Board of Secondary Education. Results were declared and respondent No. 1 F 
secured 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent no. 1 was doubtful over 
the marks secured and made a representation to the Board. On verification 
of the answer scripts, it was found that in one paper respondent No. 1 secured 
65 marks instead of 35 as shown in the mark sheet due to the wrong entry 
made in the computer. The error was rectified and fresh marks sheet was 
issued. 
In Bismaya Mohanty and Ors. v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa 
represented by its Secretary and Ors. High Court directed that the answer 
sheets of the students who had scored more than particular number of marks 
1143 
G 
H. 
1144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A were to be re-examined by Committee of three examiners to avoid the possibility 
of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks. Pursuant thereto, 
Board constituted a Committee. The cut off mark was fixed at 682. Respondent 
No. 1 filed writ petition praying for revaluation of answer sheet by the 
appellant-Board as was done in the case of candidates who had score more 
B than 682 marks. The checking was carried out. It was found that the petitioner 
had secured 71 and not 65 and the total marks secured by the candidate were 
690. High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no 
provision under any Rules or Regulations for revaluation but awarded Rs. 
20,000/- for the negligence of the Board. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
Appellant-Board contended that the High Court was justified in rejecting 
D 
the prayer of respondent No. 1 for re-valuation and as such the imposition of 
cost for initial mistake which was later rectified was impermissible; that the 
Computer Firm and the Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer were 
responsible for wrong entry of the marks; and that due proper care was taken 
in the matter of selection of examiners. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the Board's regulation do not provide 
for any revaluation. What is provided is for the addition of the marks. The 
Board had set up a Committee pursuant to the direction given in Bismaya 
E Mohanty 's case. Initially, candidate's case was not covered. But on account of 
corrections his case was to considered. His total marks were 690, whereas 
the cut off marks fixed by the Board were 682. [1140-G-H; 1150-A) 
1.2. Appellant-Board is certainly not blemishless. Undisputedly, lesser 
marks were shown in the marks sheet S'upplied to the respondent no. 1. In 
F the first marks sheet the total marks indicated were 654. Finally, marks sheet 
was issued showing the aggregate marks to be 690. Except putting the blame 
on the Computer Firm, Assistant Examiner and the Scrutinizer, nothing 
further has been offered by the appellant Board as explanation. The first 
mistake was of the computer firm but the second correction is clearly on the 
basis of the prayer for re-addition of marks. It was found that the marks 
G actually secured were 71 while on the cover page of the answer sheet the 
marks noted as 65. For this the blame has to be fixed on the Assistant Examiner 
and Scrutinizer. But that does not provide an escape route to the Board. 
[1150-A-C) 
H 
1.

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