Examination answer books confidentiality and no revaluation upheld as valid regulatory choices within broad statutory power.

Broad statutory power to regulate examinations under the parent Act justified regulations treating answer books as confidential, barring disclosure or inspection after results. The Court held that delegated legislation is valid if it stays within the statute and constitutional limits, and the policy choice was not shown to be manifestly unjust or oppressive. The regulations were also upheld insofar as they excluded revaluation: limited verification of marks did not create an implied right to revaluation, and finality, administrative workability, and public interest supported the prohibition. The Board's regulations on verification, confidentiality, and non-revaluation were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Regulation 104(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, prohibiting disclosure or inspection of answer books and treating them as confidential, was ultra vires the Act or unreasonable. (ii) Whether Regulation 104(1) and Regulation 104(3), insofar as they prohibit revaluation of answer books, were invalid.

Issue (i): Whether Regulation 104(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, prohibiting disclosure or inspection of answer books and treating them as confidential, was ultra vires the Act or unreasonable.

Analysis: The regulation-making power under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965, was wide enough to cover the conduct of examinations, evaluation of performance, publication of results, and the procedures incidental to them. The Board, charged under Sections 18 and 19 with the conduct and supervision of examinations, could validly prescribe that answer books would not be disclosed or inspected after the examination. The Court held that the validity of delegated legislation must be tested by its conformity with the parent statute and constitutional limits, not by the Court's view of its policy wisdom. Regulation 104(3) was also not liable to be struck down as unreasonable merely because it denied inspection after results were declared; the regulation was a policy choice within the competence of the statutory body and was not shown to be manifestly unjust, capricious, or oppressive.

Conclusion: Regulation 104(3) was valid and not ultra vires or unreasonable; the challenge to disclosure and inspection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether Regulation 104(1) and Regulation 104(3), insofar as they prohibit revaluation of answer books, were invalid.

Analysis: Regulation 104(1) permits only verification of marks within a limited compass, while Regulation 104(3) expressly negatives any claim to revaluation. The Court held that there was no implied right to revaluation arising from the limited verification right, and that the High Court had erred in treating inspection or revaluation as necessary incidents of fair play. The examination system adopted by the Board contained multiple checks and safeguards, and the prohibition on revaluation was a valid regulatory choice designed to preserve finality, administrative workability, and public interest in the certainty of examination results.

Conclusion: The prohibition on revaluation was valid; no candidate had a legal right to demand revaluation of answer books.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's rulings were set aside, the writ petitions stood dismissed, and the Board's regulations governing verification, confidentiality, and non-revaluation of answer books were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers broad power to regulate examinations and results, the delegate may validly exclude disclosure, inspection, and revaluation of answer books; courts will not invalidate such subordinate legislation on the basis that a different policy may appear preferable.

---