CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu has a scheme for only retotalling of marks in Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations, and courts cannot compel authorities to do re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of such a provision, the Madras high court has ruled.
Noting that an order compelling authorities to do re-evaluation would open the floodgates to similar demands from students, Justice S Vaidyanathan said: "In the absence of any scheme or provision for revaluation of answer sheet, this court cannot compel authorities to act in a particular manner as desired by the petitioner. If this petition is allowed, then there is every possibility of other students knocking at the door of this court for similar relief and the purpose of conducting the board examination will be defeated."
The judge was passing orders on a petition filed by P Muthualagan, who sought re-evaluation of his daughter M Kaavya's answer sheets of Tamil second paper in Class 10 public examination held last year. The girl scored 87 marks in the paper. Not satisfied with the marks, she sought retotalling in May last year. As there was no change in the marks, Muthualagan obtained a copy of her answer sheet under the RTI Act, and found certain 'irregularities' in the awarding of marks for seven questions.
He said because of this, his daughter secured 488 marks and could not avail herself of a scholarship from the school, which announced free education to those who secured 490 marks in the board examination. The government advocate, however, told the court that there was no error in totalling, and there was no scheme to re-evaluate answer sheets.
In his recent order, Justice Vaidyanathan said all the questions had been properly corrected and some marks awarded to them. "Of course, to some of the questions, lesser marks were also allotted, which does not mean that the petitioner's daughter is entitled to get full marks for all the questions," he said, adding that the court could not order re-evaluation of answer sheets when there was no such provision at all.
If this petition is allowed, then other students will also come knocking at the door of this court for similar relief and the purpose of conducting the board examination will be defeated
Noting that an order compelling authorities to do re-evaluation would open the floodgates to similar demands from students, Justice S Vaidyanathan said: "In the absence of any scheme or provision for revaluation of answer sheet, this court cannot compel authorities to act in a particular manner as desired by the petitioner. If this petition is allowed, then there is every possibility of other students knocking at the door of this court for similar relief and the purpose of conducting the board examination will be defeated."
The judge was passing orders on a petition filed by P Muthualagan, who sought re-evaluation of his daughter M Kaavya's answer sheets of Tamil second paper in Class 10 public examination held last year. The girl scored 87 marks in the paper. Not satisfied with the marks, she sought retotalling in May last year. As there was no change in the marks, Muthualagan obtained a copy of her answer sheet under the RTI Act, and found certain 'irregularities' in the awarding of marks for seven questions.
He said because of this, his daughter secured 488 marks and could not avail herself of a scholarship from the school, which announced free education to those who secured 490 marks in the board examination. The government advocate, however, told the court that there was no error in totalling, and there was no scheme to re-evaluate answer sheets.
In his recent order, Justice Vaidyanathan said all the questions had been properly corrected and some marks awarded to them. "Of course, to some of the questions, lesser marks were also allotted, which does not mean that the petitioner's daughter is entitled to get full marks for all the questions," he said, adding that the court could not order re-evaluation of answer sheets when there was no such provision at all.
If this petition is allowed, then other students will also come knocking at the door of this court for similar relief and the purpose of conducting the board examination will be defeated
No comments:
Post a Comment