Goof-up in evaluation of answer sheets? Challenge it

Pushpa Girimaji

Advertisement

•  The consumer organisation for which

I work has been receiving a number of complaints from students about serious mistakes in the evaluation of examination answer sheets. I feel that this is an issue that needs to be taken up with the authorities. How do I go about this?

I am glad you have raised this issue because I have also come across such cases and feel that our evaluation system needs a complete overhaul. In one case, for example, a student had been declared as ‘failed’ in a particular subject, but on obtaining the answer sheet under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, it was found that the examiner had forgotten to add the marks given for two answers, totalling 30 marks! In another case, the evaluator had not given marks for three answers!

I have also heard that teachers proficient in local languages are asked to evaluate answer sheets written in English, and vice-versa. Some of the evaluators I have spoken to have agreed that they do not do justice to the students, but say they have no time to read the answers in the time allotted and so they just skim through the answers and give marks!

All this speaks poorly of our examination system, and worse, such negligent evaluation of answer sheets can have serious repercussions on the educational and professional prospects of students. I have even come across cases where such erroneous evaluation has led to students’ committing suicide!

There is an urgent need to reform the system. I would suggest that you file a public interest litigation (PIL), seeking intervention of the high court or the Supreme Court in the matter. But first, you need to collect some statistical data on the number of applications for re-evaluation received by universities and school boards and the results of such complaints.

Any judgments that can be of help?

The Right to Information Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2011 in the Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (CA No. 6454 of 2011) holding that an answer sheet is an ‘information’ under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and therefore students or examinees have a legal right under the RTI Act to have access to their answer sheets, have helped students.

Prior to this, students had no right to ask for their answer sheets, and at best, they could only ask for re-totalling of marks, and most often, such a request made with payment of relevant fee brought forth no results. A student did not even know whether the examining authority had even undertaken any re-totalling. Today, they can see their answer sheets and challenge erroneous totalling or evaluation and have it corrected. That’s a very positive step, but the question is, why should there be mistakes at all in the first place? A PIL seeking an overhaul of the entire answer sheet evaluation system would be extremely helpful.

I recall the judgment of the apex court in November 2006 in The President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa Vs D Suvankar (CA No. 4926 of 2006), where the court emphasised that the examining authorities had a bounden duty to choose examiners equipped for the job. “Otherwise, the very purpose of evaluation of answer papers would be frustrated,” the court observed. The apex court further said, “Care should be taken to see that the examiners who have been appointed for a particular subject belong to the same faculty. It would be a mockery of the system of valuation if a teacher belonging to Arts stream is asked to evaluate answer papers of Science stream.” The court also suggested that the board should constitute a body of experts to interview those to be appointed as examiners.

So, besides calling for proper selection of candidates, your petition should ask for directions from the court to the examination authorities to give adequate time to the examiners to correct the papers, restrict the number of answer sheets to be evaluated in a day and also compensate the examiners adequately for the work. All these changes and a system of accountability can bring about the expected results.