Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing re-examination of answer script of Respondent 1 in English Paper 1.
3. The brief facts in nutshell are as follows:
Respondent 1 passed the Madhyamik (Secondary) Examination conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education in 2004. Respondent 2 is the father of Respondent 1. As a matter of post-publication scrutiny of results of Higher Secondary Examination, 2004 the marks of Respondent 1 in Physics (Theory) Paper II were increased by two marks.
4. A writ petition was filed by Respondent 1 for a direction to the appellant Council to produce the answer scripts of Respondent 1 in several papers. The said such answer scripts were produced before the Court pursuant to the direction given on 21-12-2004, on Respondent 1 depositing a sum of Rs 5000 with the Council. The matter was adjourned to 27-1-2005, and opportunity was given to learned counsel for Respondent 1 to inspect the answer scripts. On 27-1-2005, the learned Single Judge directed to preserve the answer scripts and directed to issue fresh marksheet incorporating in English Paper I, the additional marks which, it transpired during the inspection, were not awarded to him for correct answer. In terms of this direction, fresh marksheet was issued to Respondent 1.
5. Further supplementary affidavit was filed by Respondent 1 in terms of liberty granted by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the learned Single Judge directed that paper, in question, be reassessed by another examiner. The objection of the appellant Council that there is no such provision for re-examination was overruled by the learned Single Judge. The appellant Council pointed out that no specific error in assessment was pointed out by Respondent 1, though he had been granted liberty to do so. It was pointed out that there is no provision in any statute permitting such inspection, but in view of the direction given by the learned Single Judge, inspection was granted.
6. An appeal was filed by the appellant Council questioning the direction given by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench by the impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that Judges themselves have looked the answer script and were satisfied that there was scope of reassessment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that course adopted by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, is without legal sanctity.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent 3 State supported the stand of the appellant. Learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that they have nothing further to submit and do not want to contest than what was noted by the High Court.
9. The permissibility of reassessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27, AIR 1984 SC 1543. It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts.
10. The courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court that model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Board. Then only can the court ask for the production of answer scripts to allow inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309, AIR 1983 SC 1230 it was held as follows:
“16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those textbooks. Those textbooks support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.”
11. Same would be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases. The principles set out in Maharashtra Board case (1984) 4 SCC 27, AIR 1984 SC 1543 has been followed subsequently in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383 and President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar (2007) 1 SCC 603.
12. In view of the settled position in law, the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained and stand quashed.
13. In Suvankar case (2007) 1 SCC 603 it was inter alia observed as follows:
“5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27, AIR 1984 SC 1543, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one was to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero-defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost foolproof.”
14. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.