Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Nilesh Gogri, filed a writ petition on behalf of his daughter Yashvi Nilesh Gogri, a highly meritorious student who appeared for the SSC examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education in March 2016. She secured 95% overall but believed she deserved more marks in the Science-I paper. After obtaining a photocopy of her answer sheet, she noticed that her answers to Question No.3(6)(i) and Question No.4 were not properly evaluated. She applied for revaluation. The revaluation authority corrected the marks for Question No.4, increasing her percentage from 95% to 95.20%, but refused to change the marks for Question No.3(6)(i). The question asked: 'Suggest measures in the following situations: (i) To avoid noise pollution in classroom.' The student answered: '(a) Appoint a prefect or a monitor; (b) Punish the children if they make noise; (c) Give some work to children to occupy their time and keep them busy.' The court examined the answer and found it to be correct and relevant. The court acknowledged the limitations of writ jurisdiction in academic matters but held that this was an exceptional case where interference was warranted because the answer was clearly correct and the denial of a mark was patently erroneous. The court directed the respondents to grant one additional mark for Question No.3(6)(i), which would increase the student's percentage from 95.20% to 95.40%. The court also directed that the mark sheet be corrected accordingly.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference in Academic Evaluation - Exceptional Circumstances - The High Court can interfere with the evaluation of an answer by an expert body when the answer is clearly correct and the denial of marks is patently erroneous, as it would be a travesty of justice to allow such error to stand. (Paras 4-8) B) Education Law - Revaluation - Correct Answer - The court found that the student's answer to Question No.3(6)(i) suggesting measures to avoid noise pollution in classroom was correct and deserved full marks, and the revaluation authority's refusal to grant the mark was erroneous. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere with the evaluation of an answer by an expert academic body when the answer is correct but not awarded marks.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant one additional mark to the petitioner's daughter for Question No.3(6)(i) of the Science-I paper, and to correct the mark sheet accordingly.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- interference with expert evaluation
- exceptional circumstances
- revaluation
- academic matters
