CBSE also makes mistakes, should not have scrapped re-evaluation policy: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court on Friday orally observed that the CBSE ought not have done away with its re-evaluation policy as it also makes mistakes in evaluation of answer sheets.Board exams 2017 Updated: Jun 17, 2017 16:28 IST
The Delhi High Court on Friday orally observed that the CBSE ought not have done away with its re-evaluation policy as it also makes mistakes in evaluation of answer sheets.
“You (CBSE) should not have done that. You too make mistakes,” Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said while hearing a student’s plea for re-evaluation of her class 12 board exam answer sheets of English and Maths subjects.
In response, the lawyer for the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) said the re-evaluation policy was scrapped as there were only 0.21% mistakes out of the 10 lakh students who undertake the board exams across the country.
To this the court remarked that it would mean “careers of 2100 students are at stake”.
“We all know what happens on a fraction of a mark or percentage,” the court added.
While the court did not pass any order on the student’s plea for re-evaluation, it told CBSE that if she has made an application for a copy of the answer sheets it be provided to her.
Regarding the student’s plea for a direction to the board to carry out re-verification of her answer sheets, the CBSE lawyer said re-verification has been carried out and there is no change in her marks.
The lawyer said the outcome of re-verification would be uploaded on its website.
The court, thereafter, listed the matter for hearing on June 19 as the CBSE in another similar matter had submitted that it will on that date be challenging an Orissa High Court order directing it to re-evaluate answer sheets of 159 students of the state.
The Orissa High Court order had come after the CBSE lawyer there had submitted that re-evaluation can still be carried out.
In the other similar matter, the CBSE told the court that the submission made before the Orissa High Court was incorrect.