Bombay HC Grants One More Mark To Meritorious Student In SSC Exam For Pragmatic Answer [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court has granted one more mark to a highly meritorious student who sought relief with regard to one question from her Science paper of SSC Examination held in March 2016 by Mumbai Divisional Board, Vashi, of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & High Secondary Education.

A division bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Riyaz Chagla was hearing the writ petition filed by one Nilesh Gogri, who is the student’s father.

In the said examinations, Yashvi Gogri secured 95% marks, however, she sought photocopy of her answer sheets as she realised that marks secured in her Science paper was less than what she expected.

Upon receipt of the answer sheets, she realised that she had answered all the questions correctly and therefore applied for re-evaluation. The re-evaluating authority found that a mistake was committed with regard to one question, hence, one more mark was granted, however , with regard to this one question, she refused to interfere.

The said question was- (6). Suggest measures in the following situations – (i) To avoid noise pollution in classroom.

Yashvi answered the question as-  To avoid noise pollution in classroom

(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

Appearing for the state and state board, Amey Jaiswal argued that the said answer is incorrect as the model answer to this question is “avoid making a lot of noise, not to shout loudly.”

The court observed: “We are of the considered view that Respondents have taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. Merely because the model answer states that the measures for avoiding noise pollution would be “not to shout loudly” does not mean that the answer given by the Petitioner's daughter is incorrect.

On the contrary, it can be seen that the Petitioner has applied her mind in a far more pragmatic manner and has found more than one measures to avoid noise pollution. We are of the considered view that the Respondents rather than punishing the Petitioner for this ingenuity, she ought to have appreciated her efforts and specifically when as a matter of fact measures suggested by her had a direct relation with the measure to control noise pollution.”

Thus, the prayer to grant full marks in the said question was allowed.