Blog

Case Title: Nilkanth Das and Ors v. CBSE and Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) 10063/2020

Decided on: 5th January 2024

CORAM: C Hari Shankar J.

 

Facts of the Case

Miloni Das, a Class X student at the Indian School in Muscat, Oman, is a Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) student. Miloni and her father, Nilakantha Das, found after the publication of final examination results on July 15, 2020, that she was assigned 18 marks out of 20 in internal evaluation for the Social Studies paper, while obtaining 20 out of 20 in all other subjects. They contacted the school, claiming that Miloni should have gotten full grades in Social Studies. The school admitted its error and swiftly notified CBSE of the repair request.

In later conversations, the school apologised for the blunder and asked CBSE to correct Miloni’s internal evaluation marks. However, CBSE declined to make any modifications, citing circulars dated January 30, 2020, and November 8, 2019, and claiming that once marks are submitted, no revisions are permitted. Despite Miloni’s efforts, including an application under the Right to Information Act, CBSE maintained its stance, causing Nilakantha Das to file a writ suit under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution on behalf of his daughter. The suit requested a mandamus ordering CBSE to increase Miloni’s internal evaluation marks in Social Studies from 18 to 20, as well as other relief.

During the hearings, Mr. N.K. Sahoo, representing the petitioners, contended that Miloni should not suffer as a result of the school’s error because she obtained the right grades. However, the CBSE claimed, backed up by circulars, that adjustments were not permitted once marks were published. The court, although sympathising with Miloni’s plight, admitted its inability to award relief because the circulars had not been contested, leaving the petition without a cause of action. The court dismissed the petition with no fees, citing the public interest in safeguarding the integrity of examination outcomes.

Legal Provisions

The legal rules in this case are largely concerned with Circulars published by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) concerning the uploading and rectification of internal assessment marks for Class X pupils. The CBSE Circulars dated November 8, 2019 and January 30, 2020 provide clear rules for CBSE-affiliated schools regarding the posting of internal evaluation marks. These Circulars declare unequivocally that once the results are posted on the CBSE website, no corrections would be permitted. The Circulars emphasise the finality of posted marks and warn schools to upload with caution to guarantee correctness.

The issue also includes the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), since the petitioner submitted an application under this act requesting information from the CBSE about internal evaluation marks and associated correspondence between the school and CBSE. The RTI Act answer from the CBSE is also included in the lawsuit, proving contact between the petitioner and the education board.

Overall, the legal dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the CBSE Circulars, which govern the protocol for dealing with internal assessment marks and corrections, as well as the petitioner’s attempt to seek a revision of internal assessment marks for a specific subject despite the CBSE’s adherence to its Circulars.

Issues

The legal problems in this matter focus upon CBSE Circulars dated 8 November 2019 and 30 January 2020, which mandate a strict position on the modification of internal evaluation marks once they have been submitted to the CBSE’s website. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus ordering the CBSE to amend Miloni Das’ internal evaluation marks in Social Studies from 18 to 20. The fundamental issues are whether the CBSE’s reluctance to adjust the marks, notwithstanding the school’s admission of an error, is consistent with its own Circulars, and whether the Circulars themselves are reasonable and legally acceptable. Furthermore, the case raises worries about the impact on students if schools are permitted to correct inaccuracies in uploaded marks, which might lead to administrative disputes and delays in result declarations.

 

Courts analysis and decision

Miloni Das, an Indian School student in Muscat, Oman, disputed the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) decision not to increase her internal evaluation grades in Social Studies from 18 to 20. Miloni and her father, Nilakantha Das, claimed that there was a mistake in the school’s uploading of her marks, which the school accepted and wanted to be corrected by the CBSE. However, the CBSE declined to make any modifications to the scores after they were submitted, citing Circulars dated 8 November 2019 and 30 January 2020.

While sympathising with Miloni’s plight, the court concluded that the CBSE Circulars were explicit and emphatic in prohibiting alterations to submitted grades. The court emphasised the necessity of maintaining the test system’s integrity and preventing the turmoil that may occur if schools were permitted to request changes after uploading marks. It further emphasised the practical difficulties that the CBSE would have in checking and adjusting scores for a large number of pupils if such methods were authorised. The court noted that Mr. Sahoo, the petitioners’ attorney, had decided not to contest the CBSE Circulars. As a result, the court rejected the petition because it lacked a cause of action. The decision emphasises the importance of following examination processes and regulations while also noting the court’s limitations in intervening where such rules are not contested.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by: Aastha Ganesh Tiwari

click to read the judgment