Best Marks Obtained To Be Considered When Students Appears For Supplementary Exams In Both 11th &12th Grades: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that when a student appears for both regular as well as supplementary examinations for 11th and 12th grades, the best marks obtained by the student in both the examinations ought to be considered. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Basant Balaji relied upon the Apex Court decision in Sukriti & Ors. v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. (2022), in passing the Order.

In the said decision, the Apex Court had struck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which stipulated that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams for the last academic year, and proceeded to direct the CBSE to provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results.

"Though on facts, the case in hand and the case decided by the Apex Court are different, the logic that the better marks must be taken more so when it is a supplementary/improvement examination is applied to the facts of this case. Therefore, the petitioner, though appeared in the supplementary examinations both in the 11th and 12th grades, obtained different marks for the same subjects, the respondents ought to have taken the best marks he obtained in the regular examination as well as in the supplementary examination. Then only, the intention of conducting a supplementary/improvement examination can be brought to a logical conclusion," the Court observed. 

Factual Background

The petitioner had secured 24 marks in Physics, 19 marks in Chemistry, and 20 marks in Mathematics in the Terminal Evaluation in 11th Grade. For the Grade 12 Terminal Examinations, he scored 10 marks in Physics, 4 marks in Chemistry, and 9 marks in Mathematics, thereby securing only D Grade, instead of D+ that is required in order to be eligible for higher studies. 

The petitioner thus appeared for improvement/supplementary examinations for Grades 11 and 12. As per Clause4 of the Notification No. EX-II-1/14200/HSE/2022 issued by the Secretary, Board of Higher Secondary Examination (3rd respondent), states that with respect to Compartmental candidates registering for the 1st year’s papers only, the best scores obtained by the candidate for those papers at the previous 2nd year examinations shall be carried forward and vice versa. 

The petitioner secured 22 marks in Physics, 5 marks in Chemistry, and 30 marks in Mathematics in the 1st year Higher Secondary Improvement Examination, and 13 marks in Physics, 20 marks in Chemistry, and 11 marks in Mathematics in the 2nd year improvement examination. The petitioner's case is that his marks in the improvement examination were only considered, thereby disregarding Clause 4 of the notification which provides for carrying forward of the best grades obtained from previous examinations.

The petitioner was aggrieved that despite having qualified the Kerala Medical and Engineering Examinations (KEAM), he was precluded from obtaining admission to higher studies, due to not getting his best scores in the 11th and 12th grades. He thus sought a direction to to be issued to the Secretary for declaring the results of the petitioner combining the best score obtained by him in the first year higher secondary examination held in 2021 and in the second year higher secondary examination held in 2023. 

The 3rd respondent however, argued that a Higher Secondary student of the science stream ought to obtain 36 marks for a subject in aggregate for the 1st year and 2nd year examinations, and that the petitioner herein had obtained only 35, 25, and 41 for Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics respectively, when the marks in the supplementary/improvement examination were taken together, and was accordingly, not eligible for higher studies. 

It was emphasized that as per the Annexure to the notification relied upon by the petitioner, it had been provided that even if marks obtained in the 2nd year supplementary examinations were lower than those obtained in the previous year’s regular examination, the candidate would not be eligible to retain the best score of the previous year’s regular examination.

Findings of the Court 

The Court in this case observed that the intention behind allowing students to attempt the compartmental examination is to give them a chance to improve their scores and to obtain a D+ grade or more so that they could join for higher studies.

The Court noted that the notification did not envisage a situation wherein a candidate would appear for both the 11th and 12th-grade supplementary examinations.

"Merely because a student has appeared in both the supplementary examinations, it cannot be said that the best course obtained by the candidate cannot be taken as the guidelines fully relate to persons who appear for the 1st year papers only. It is to be borne in mind that the intention is to help those candidates who could not achieve D+ grades in the regular examinations. So, in order to achieve the intention of the supplementary/improvement examination is to see that the candidates obtained higher grades, it is not logical that a person who appears for the 1st year examination alone will be entitled to the best course obtained by him and a person who has appeared for improvement examination for the 1st year and 2nd year is not entitled to the best score is discriminatory and illogical," the Court declared. 

It thus relied upon the decision in Sukriti (Supra) to hold that the respondents herein ought to have taken the best marks the petitioner obtained in the regular examination as well as in the supplementary examination, even if he had appeared in the supplementary examinations for both 11th and 12th grades. 

The 3rd respondent Secretary was thereby directed to declare the result of the petitioner combining the best scores obtained by him in the 1st year secondary examinations both in regular and supplementary as well as the 2nd year higher secondary examinations both regular and supplementary, and to issue to him the marklist on consideration of the same.

The plea was thus allowed with the afore directions. 

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Ahammad Sachin K., Vinod S. Pillai, Mohammed Thayib N.M., and Nayana Varghese. Government Pleader V.K. Sunil also appeared in the present case. 

Case Title: Jagankumar K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 414 

Case Number: W.P.(C) NO.24129 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment