S.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.)Petitioner No. 2 who is a minor challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution his result in the subjects of Mathematics Chemistry Physics and Biology obtained by him in the higher secondary certificate examination held by the respondent board in April 1982. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother of minor-petitioner No. 2.
(2.)In order to appreciate the nature of the grievances put forward by the petitioners it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. Petitioner No. 2 appeared at the higher secondary certificate examination conducted by the respondent board in April 1982 from Baroda centre through Vidyakunj English Medium Higher Secondary School Baroda. Petitioner No. 2s seat number was B-20068. He had appeared in the said examination in science stream. The respondent board is a statutory board which is entrusted with the function of conducting examinations of higher secondary standards as per the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 and the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination Regulations 1977 Petitioner No. 2 was declared to have passed the aforesaid examination in science stream. The grand total of marks obtained by him as per the certificate issued by the Board is shown to be 408 out of 800. Thus the petitioner No. 2 scored 51% of marks at the said examination. Xerox copy of the mark sheet issued to him declaring him to have passed from the science stream in April 1982 examination is annexed at annexure A to the petition.
(3.)The petitioners case is that they were shocked and surprised when the result of petitioner No. 2 was read by them. According to the petitioners petitioner No. 2 is a brilliant student and he could not have obtained such low marks so far as papers of Mathematics I and II Physics Chemistry and Biology went. The petitioners case is that even while appearing in science stream examinations in 8th and 9 standards petitioner No. 2 had got distinction marks in Mathematics and science subject. Under these circumstances according to the petitioners the result of petitioner No. 2 as per the mark-sheet at annexure A did not reflect the correct position and the performance of petitioner No. 2 appeared to have been under-assessed so far as the aforesaid subjects were concerned. It has been submitted by the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 is a brilliant student and it is not possible for him to secure less marks because of the examination pattern laid down for science stream subjects. Under these circumstances petitioners have filed the present petition requesting this court to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ for quashing the result of petitioner No. 2 as reflected by the mark sheet at annexure A and by further prayer it is requested that the respondent be directed to re-assess the papers of petitioner No. 2 in all the subjects particularly in the subjects of Mathematics I and II Physics Chemistry and Biology and that the respondent be called upon to amend the result of petitioner No. 2 in the light of re-evaluation or re-assessment of the concerned answer papers. Pending this petition amendments were moved on two occasions. On 13-8-1982 by amendment para 13A was added to the petition wherein it has been submitted that as per an ended regulation 29(5) of the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination Regulations 1977 petitioner No. 2 has got locus paenitentiae to be declared as having failed in the said examination and that he wants to exercise that option and consequently the respondent board be called upon to declare petitioner No. 2 to have failed in the said examination by enabling him to have the benefit of amended regulation 29 Thereafter a second amendment was moved to the petition on 9 whereby two sub-paras were sought to be added to para 12 under which additional submissions were made contending that petitioner No. 2 even though he may be treated to have passed the said examination from science stream in April 1982 is entitled to reappear at the said examination in March/April 1983. The petition was admitted to final hearing by me last year. Earlier notice pending admission was ordered to be issued in the present petition. In response to the said notice one Rajni N. Shah examination Secretary of the respondent board has filed his affidavit-in-reply on 18-8-1982 opposing the petition. No further affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent board after the petitioner was admitted to final hearing and even after amendments were granted to the petition. However Mr. J. A. Shelat learned Advocate for the respondent board submitted oral arguments in refutation of the averments made in the petition as originally framed as well as in the amended parts of the petition. When the petition reached final hearing before me Mr. Raval learned Advocate for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition ;
"1 The respondent board is liable to be called upon to reassess the answer books of petitioner No. 2 at the said examination so far as subjects of Mathematics Papers I and II Chemistry theory Physics theory and Biology theory go.

Mr. Raval submitted. that looking to the brilliant academic career of petitioner No. 2 all throughout while he was student in science stream from standard VIII onwards assessment of marks of petitioner No. 2 in the concerned subjects clearly involved a patent error and shows that petitioner No. 2s performance has been undervalued and underrated and hence petitioner No. 2 deserves to be granted reassessment of the concerned papers.

2. It was alternatively contended by Mr. Raval that the respondent board has amended regulation 29 by inserting sub-regulation (5) and under the said amended regulation 29(5) petitioner No. 2 is entitled to exercise an option of being declared unsuccessful at the said examination in as much as in the paper of Physics theory petitioner No. 2 has been granted 5 additional marks over and above 30 and has been accordingly declared to have passed in Physics theory paper by getting 35 marks.