1906, 1772, 1799, 1838, 1885, 1923, 1925, 1926,1928, 1996 1998, 2005, 2060 65, 2076, 2099 2102, 2110, 2127, 1909, 1864, 1965, 1889, 1890, 1924, 1927, 2003, 2044, 2098, 2176, 2176, 2177 and 2179 of 1980 R, P. Bhati, Soli J. Sorabjee, Ravi Kulkarni, Ravinder Narain, A. N. Hasker, D. N. Misra and Mrs. A. K. Verma for the Appellants.
S. Khanduja and Satya Prakash for the Respondents.
1653 to 1691 of 1980 Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 28th 29 July, 1980 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
Dr. N. M. Ghatate for Respondent in CA.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1658/80.
H. Parekh and Miss Nisha Shrivastava for Respondents in CA.
N. Ganpule and Mrs. V. D. Khanna, for Respondent in CA.
Labouring under a feeling that there has number been a proper evaluation of their perfor mance in the examination, they would naturally like to have a revaluation of the answer books and even a personal inspection and verification of the answer books for finding out whether there has been a proper evaluation of the answers to all questions, whether the totalling of marks has been companyrectly done and whether there has been any tampering with the seat numbers written on the answer books and the supplementary sheets.
A number of such disappointed candidates who had appeared for the Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School Certificate public examinations companyducted by the Divisional Boards functioning under the supervision and companytrol of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education hereinafter called the Board filed a batch of 39 Writ Petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Regulation 104 3 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 and seeking the issuance of writs directing the Board appellant herein to allow to the petitioners disclosure and inspection of their answer books in the Public examination, the results whereof had already been published and to companyduct a revaluation of such of the answer papers as the petitioners may demand after the inspection.
The High Court divided the Writ Petitions into two groups, the first group companysisting of cases where the right of inspection alone was claimed and the second group companyprising of cases where the petitioners had claimed also the further right to demand a revaluation of the answer papers.
1659 and 1684 of 1980.
1685 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. It is companymon experience that whenever the results of Public examinations companyducted by School Boards and Universities or by other bodies like the Public Service Commission a e announced, amidst the rejoicings of successful candidates who have secured the grade of marks anticipated by them, it also inevitably brings with it a long trail of disappointments and frustrations as the direct outcome of the number fructuation of hopes and expectations harboured in the minds of the examinees based on the candidates own assessment of their performance and merit.
Though all the Writ Petitions were heard together by a Division Bench companysisting of V. S. Deshpande and V. A. Mohta, JJ, the two groups were disposed of by separate judgments delivered on behalf of the Bench on the same day 28th July 1980.
The first group of Writ Petitions was disposed of by a judgment delivered by Deshpande, J speaking on behalf of the Division Bench.
The question canvassed before us in these appeals is whether, under law a candidate has a right to demand such an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall be numbersuch right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void.
