@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.@mdashThis writ appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
2. Though there are no provisions for revaluation of answer sheets, but on a persistent argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the answer sheet of the appellant was not properly valued, we have sent for the answer sheet of the appellant alongwith the key, on condition of the appellant depositing Rs. 10,000/-
3. On 23-2-2000, the respondent-Board produced the answer sheet of the appellant in the Court. On going through the answer sheet, we were fully satisfied that the answers in the answer sheet tallied word by word with the answers given in the key, and felt that the Teacher, who initially examined the appellant''s answer sheet did not evaluate it properly and also failed to compare it with the key. Under those circumstances, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-Board of Secondary Education (for short ''the Board'') has undertaken to get the answer sheet of the appellant revalued by an independent Teacher, who after revaluing the answer sheet awarded 34 marks to the appellant.
4. The Teacher, who initially valued the appellant''s answer sheet awarded only 4 marks, whereas the independent Teacher who revalued the answer sheet now awarded 34 marks. This difference of opinion between the two Teachers in awarding of marks shows that there was complete lack of application of mind on the part of the Teacher who initially valued the appellant''s answer sheet, giving rise to draw an inference that the Teacher valued the answer sheet casually, carelessly and improperly. The Teacher, who initially valued the answer sheet of the appellant is present in the Court. In order to ascertain what is the difference between the answers written by the appellant in the answer sheet and the answers given in the key, we questioned the Teacher to read out certain questions and answers, but she failed to find out any specific difference. We are, therefore, fully satisfied that for undisclosed reasons, the answer sheet of the appellant was not properly valued, and thus played with the life of a young boy of Class X, whose mind is immature and who is unable to assess his own abilities and capabilities.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would squarely be met if the respondent-Board is directed to finally get the answer sheet of the appellant evaluated by a third independent teacher/examiner, and award marks to the appellant by taking the mean of the marks awarded by the second Teacher.
6. We are also of the considered view that the respondent-Board should be directed to take appropriate steps that are permissible under the Rules to debar the Teacher, who initially, valued the answer sheet of the appellant, from drafting her as an examiner/valuer for future examinations, after serving show-cause notice and granting opportunity of hearing to her. The action taken be intimated to this Court.
7. Taking into consideration the case on hand, and the difficulties faced by the student community, we are of the opinion that the Academic Council of the State and the respondent-Board should evolve Rules providing for re-valuation of answer sheets of students on payment of certain fee by independent Teachers; as was done in this case, as otherwise it will amount to perpetuating the draconian rule of thumb, perpetuating injustice on the young students, whose minds are immature and easily receptive to the scars of failure, which leave an indelible mark in their minds and make them suffer throughout their life.
8. Since the Courts cannot frame Rules or guidelines, we have no doubt that the Academic Council of the State will properly appreciate the injustice, which this case has projected, and frame Rules as stated above, to meet the exigencies, keeping in view the interest of the students and the agony they may face or undergo in the absence of such Rules for re-valuation.
9. With the above directions, we allow the writ appeal with costs, quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), to be paid by the respondent-Board to the appellant. It would be open for the respondent-Board to recover the costs from the Teacher, who initially valued the answer sheet of the appellant, in accordance with the Rules The amount of Rs. 10,000/-deposited by the appellant be refunded to him.
