THE SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION versus AYAN DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 28-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE SECRETARY, WEST BENGAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER 
SECONDARY EDUCATION 
V. 
A YAN 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 
F 
HELD: The orders of Single Judge and the Division Bench of High 
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 
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. P aritosh 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 of Secondary 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. 
Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors., AIR (1983) 
SC 1230, ref erred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4560 of 
A 
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 PASAYA T, 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 
c 
D 
the direction given by learned Single Judge, inspection was granted. 
An appeal was filed by the Appellant-Council questi

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