'Glaring Malpractice': Madhya Pradesh HC Pulls Up Secondary Education Board For Incorrect Evaluation Of Student's Answer Copy, Fines ₹25,000

The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court recently pulled up MP Board of Secondary Education for "glaring malpractice" in the evaluation of a Class 12 student's examination copy and directed the Board to pay cost of Rs. 25000 to the student for the irresponsible treatment meted out to him. Justice Vivek Jain observed, “The Board which deals with adolescent students cannot permit such malpractice and injustice with a candidate to take place and get unremedied. If it was case of subjective answers, the position would have been different, so would have been the case where there was any dispute with correctness of the answer key, where the Board could have pleaded benefit of doubt. However, if the examiners evaluate the answer scripts contrary to model answer key of the Board itself, and the position is not remedies, the faith of the students in the examination system of the Board is bound to be shaken, and that should be the last which a responsible education would allow to take place.” In the present writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for revaluation of marks awarded to him in Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 2023 (Class 12th) in Mathematics. The examination was conducted by Board of Secondary Education in 2023. As submitted by the petitioner, questions No.1, 2, 3 and 4 in Mathematics were objective type or one-word question/answers some of which were wrongly evaluated. There were six objective type questions of one mark each in question No.1 and 3 whereas seven objective type/one word questions of one mark each in question No. 2 and 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that said objective type answers in question No.1, 2, 3 and 4 were wrongly valued, contrary to the model answer key issued by the Board of Secondary Education and the same was not taken into consideration by the examiner. The petitioner also placed on record the question paper, the copy of answer sheet obtained under RTI Act as well as the model answer key issued by the Board. Further, it was contended that even though there is no provision for revaluation in the Regulations of the Board, yet looking to the blatant negligence and misconduct of the examiner, it is a fit case for interference as material irregularity was committed by the examiner. On the contrary, the counsel for the Respondent/Board contended that there is no provision for revaluation and in absence of such provision, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It was further argued that out of the various questions agitated, 1 (one) mark for question No. 4 (vii) had already been awarded and the modified mark sheet had been issued. After going through the answers attempted by the petitioner and the answers given in the model answer key, the court concluded that there are 12 questions of 1 (one) mark each where the answers have been scored out as wrong, though they were correctly attempted as per model answer key. With regard to the contention of the Board that as per Regulation 119 of M.P Board of Secondary Education Regulations, there is no provision for revaluation of answer scripts, the court said that the Board seems to be ignorant of its Regulation 117 of its own regulations. Referring to Regulation 117, the court said, “The Board is having power to correct the result in case it is established that there has been an effect on the result by error, malpractice, fraud improper conduct, or other matter of whatsoever nature. In the present case, there was a glaring malpractice of the examiner where he misconducted in evaluating the objective type and one-word type questions contrary to the model answer key. It was a fit case to invoke clause 117.” The court also referred to the case of High Court of Tripura Through The Registrar General V. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and others, wherein it was held that despite there being no provision for revaluations, directions in some exceptional cases can be issued by the Courts. Such exceptional cases may be where questions are not valued or there is some interpolation in answer sheet or if the incorrect valuation can be discerned without any process of detailed reasoning. Thus, the court allowed the present petition and directed the Board to award marks of the 12 wrongly scored off answers as per its own answer key and issue a modified mark sheet to the petitioner. “Looking to the irresponsible manner in which the petitioner has been treated by the Board, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal. The Board is free to recover the amount from the erring person, after paying the same to the petitioner”, the Court said. Case Title: Saket Tiwari Versus M.P. Board Of Secondary Education And Others, Writ Petition No. 20603 of 2023Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 4

'Glaring Malpractice': Madhya Pradesh HC Pulls Up Secondary Education Board For Incorrect Evaluation Of Student's Answer Copy, Fines ₹25,000

Anukriti Mishra

Tags