After disposing of more than 1,000 cases filed by aggrieved candidates of Madhyamik 2002, Higher Secondary and other Calcutta University examinations, Justice Barin Ghosh of Calcutta High Court has suggested that the authorities of the respective Boards and Councils follow a “model code” to avoid such disputes and take measures to make the publication of results transparent.
He has recommended that the respective authorities prepare “model answers” for each question set every year. These answers should be prepared by the paper-setters themselves, or by appropriate experts, and handed over to the examiners evaluating the answer-scripts. The process, the judge observed, would eliminate the chances of variation and discrimination while assessing the candidates.
Justice Ghosh also held that the boards and councils conducting the examinations take steps to publish the answer-scripts of a few “bright” candidates for distribution in colleges and schools, so that future examinees could get an idea of how answers should be written.
Apart from hearing the cases, Justice Ghosh has also received thousands of letters from the candidates of different examinations. The judge has handed over the letters to the lawyers of the university, Board and the Council concerned, and asked them to consider the cases, if justified.
The judge’s observations stem from the trends observed over the past three years, after results of various public examinations were published. A public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2000 demanded more transparency in the publication of results, especially of the Madhyamik and Higher Secondary exams.
The PIL followed a suicide attempt by a Higher Secondary candidate after the results were published. The candidate was confident that she had fared better, on the basis of which her father had filed the case, demanding introduction of a system by which photocopies of marked answer-scripts would accompany the candidate’s marksheet.
About 300 other candidates of that year’s Madhyamik and Higher Secondary examinations became a party to the case. A high court division bench had then directed the Board and the Council to take steps to make the publication of results more transparent.