'Constitutionally Untenable' : DCPCR Asks CBSE To Award Actual Marks Scored In Practicals And Not On Pro-Rata Basis

Granting relief to a Class 12 student in Delhi, the Delhi Commission for Protection for Child Rights (DCPCR) has asked the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) to award the actual marks scored by him in the practical exam instead of awarding marks on a pro-rata basis with theory exams.

The DCPCR held that "CBSE policy of awarding marks to students on a pro-rata basis violates its own policy of separation of practicals and theory".

The order passed by DCPCR Chairperson Anurag Kundu said :

"CBSE is an examination body i.e. its role is to conduct examinations and report scores. By seeking to decide marks to something the child has not scored and disregarding the actual marks scored by the child, the CBSE assumes to itself the powers it does not have. Allowing CBSE to exercise powers it does not have to amend scores of the child at its whims (or through a whimsical policy) is a constitutionally untenable position".

The Commission was considering the complaint of a student's father who was marked absent in mathematical practical exam for the academic year 2019-2020 despite scoring 17/20 in the assessment. It was later found that the student was marked absent due to a mistake on the part of the exam centre.  Following that, the Regional Director of CBSE called the student and the parent for a meeting and suggested that he can be awarded 4/20 on a pro-rata basis.

Aggrieved with the CBSE decision to not award the actual marks, the student's father approached the DCPCR.

The Commission decided to enquire into the matter in exercise of powers under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005, saying "Considering marking a student absent while being duly present in the examination not only deprives the child of the world of opportunities that lay infront of him but also violates his constitutional rights".

Before the Commission, the CBSE said that as per its policy, internal grades once uploaded cannot be be corrected. But since the matter impacted the child's future, it was decided to allot scores on a pro-rata basis of written exams. Thus, it was decided to change the 'Absent' marking with the pro-rata score of 4/20.

The Commission held that this policy suffered from three deficiencies :

"CBSE is an examination body i.e. it's role is to conduct examinations and report scores. By seeking to decide marks to something the child has not scored and disregarding the actual marks scored by the child, the CBSE assumes to itself the powers it does not have. Allowing CBSE to exercise powers it does not have to amend scores of the child at its whims (or through a whimsical policy) is a constitutionally untenable position".

"The student scored 17/20 marks, and therefore by giving him marks lower than he scored(4/20), the CBSE violates his right to education and deprives him of the world of opportunities that are dependent on board results in our country. In that sense, the CBSE's policy assumes greater significance and must be fair. The Commission deems its current policy unfair. In jurisprudence, punishment to the guilty and protection to the innocent are non-negotiable elements. has committed no wrong and yet CBSE's policy seeks to punish a poor boy who is a victim here for no fault of his. CBSE is seeking to victimise the victim. The Commission can hardly think of a justification for that and deems the CBSE's policy arbitrary and violative of the rights of the child".

"CBSE's policy of awarding marks to students on a pro-rata basis violates its own policy of separation of practicals and theory. By including both components, the CBSE by design concedes that these are two different skills: there are students who might reproduce how light travels and its effects on 5 marks questions, and yet may not be able to perform 2 experiments and vice-versa. Since CBSE has a separate approach to the practical and theory marks and the policy of awarding those marks, the CBSE violates its own policy by now linking practical marks to theory's. It reduces the entire process to a mechanical process which is devoid of its relationship with reality and learning. Consequently, it produces a set of policies that contradict each other".

In exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005, the Commission made the following recommendations :

a) CBSE to ensure that the student is awarded marks exactly what he scored and not on a pro-rata basis.

b. CBSE to amend its policy suitably and award marks as is, not pro-rata

c. Department of Education. Government of NCT of Delhi to make the procedural changes required to ensure that mistakes such as uploading of wrong marks, loss of information of child's contre, lack of alerts being raised in case of duplicate entries and other procedural breakdown do not happen again. This might require use of technology, greater staff and robust processes.

d. Department of Education. Government of NCT of Delhi to initiate appropriate proceeding- under service rules against the then CBSE Incharge and then Principal. PV whose responsibility included ensuring that correct numbers of students should be sent.

e. Department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi to compensate with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental trauma he has had to suffer because of the departmental lapse.

Click here to read/download the order