- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. This petitioner appeared in the intermediate examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the year 1993-94 as a private candidate for which he had been allotted roll number 0893289. He asserts that his answers to the questions set in the question papers were fairly good and he was confident that he would pass the examination securing about 50% marks but was declared to have failed in the aforesaid examination by the respondents. It is also stated by the petitioner that from the mark-sheet supplied to him by the respondents, it was disclosed that while he had secured 62 marks in the subject of Chemistry and 46 marks in the subject of Biology, the marks awarded to him in the subjects of English were only 28 and in the subject of Physics only 26 on the basis whereof he had been declared to have failed in these subjects. It is asserted that the petitioner had done fairly well its both the subjects of English and Physics and was quite hopeful of securing good marks in these subjects and there was no chance of his having been failed in the examination.
(2.) IT appears that on the receipt of the mark-sheet the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 for getting re-evaluation of his answer books for the aforesaid subjects of English and Physics but this request for re-evaluation was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that there was no provision for re-evalution. The petitioner asserts that the answer books had not been examined properly in the examination conducted by the respondent No. 1 and the casual examining of the answer books without correctly and properly assessing the performance of the examinee, the respondent No. 1 has declared the result ignoring the irregularities and bungling. The petitioner claims that his career is being spoiled due to arbitrary and calious evaluation of his answer books. On the aforesaid assertions, the petitioner claims that his answer books in the subjects of English and Physics be got re-evaluated and the petitioner be declared to have passed by awarding him atleast 8 grace marks in both the subjects and the and the rule whereunder grace marks to the extent of 8 marks may be given to the students in one subject only be extended so as to award the grace marks in two subjects as the petitioner has secured more than 25% marks in the subjects of English and Physics as there can be no justification for giving grace marks only in one subject. On the aforesaid assertions, the petitioner has sought for a direction requiring, the respondent No. 1 to get the petitioner's answer books in the subject of Physics and English to be re-examined/re- evaluated and has further sought for a direction requiring the respondents to declare him as having passed after awarding him grace marks in both the subjects of Physics and English.
(3.) THE claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, the respondent No. 1 on various grounds It has been asserted that the petitioner has been allotted marks according to his performance without there being any irregularity or illegality as alleged. It is further asserted that there was no provision for re-evalua tion ' of the answer books and the petitioner has no right to claim re-evaluation of his answers to the questions set in the question papers relating to the subjects of English and Physics. It has however, been indicated that the petitioner can get a scrutiny done for which he had never applied. It is also asserted that the answer books of the petitioner had been examined by the experience examiners. So far as, the question relating to the award of the grace marks is concerned, the stand of the respondent No. 1 is that the provisions relating to the award of grace marks stipulate that grace marks could be awarded to the extent of 8 marks only in one subject provided the examinee had secured 25 marks in the subject and the aggregate came to 40%. In the present case, since the petitioner had failed in two subject, the award of grace marks in one subject could have made no difference at all in the final result in the case of the petitioner who had been declared to have failed in the intermediate examination. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 and has carefully perused the record.;