Bad faith in practical examination marking can vitiate results and justify a fresh examination.

A practical examination assessment may be set aside and re-held where the examiner's discretion is exercised in bad faith or with mala fides, because assessment in a public examination is a public duty requiring fairness. The governing regulations were read as permitting amendment of results where the examination is affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or comparable circumstances, and that list was treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive. Applying the civil standard of proof, the Court found the student had shown hostile animus and unfair marking in Physics practicals through surrounding evidence, including academic record, comparative marks, prior complaint and corroborative material. The practical examination was therefore directed to be conducted again.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the result of a practical examination can be vitiated and re-done where the examiner acts in bad faith or with mala fides; (ii) whether the petitioner established, on a balance of probabilities, that the marks in the Physics practical examination were unfairly awarded because of hostile animus and improper conduct by the internal examiner.

Issue (i): whether the result of a practical examination can be vitiated and re-done where the examiner acts in bad faith or with mala fides

Analysis: An examiner, though vested with discretion in assessment, performs a public duty and must act fairly. The governing regulations contemplated amendment of results where the examination was affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct, or other matters of whatsoever nature. The list of contingencies was treated as illustrative, and bad faith was held to vitiate the exercise of discretion. Where the assessment is tainted by mala fide conduct, the result cannot stand and the Board may direct a fresh examination.

Conclusion: The result of the practical examination was liable to be quashed and re-held afresh.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner established, on a balance of probabilities, that the marks in the Physics practical examination were unfairly awarded because of hostile animus and improper conduct by the internal examiner

Analysis: The Court relied on the petitioner's consistently high academic record, the unusually low practical marks in Physics compared with other subjects and other students, the prior complaint to the Principal before the examination, the refusal to certify the journal, the post-examination complaint to the Board, the corroborative material regarding private coaching, and the examiner's earlier adverse record. On these circumstances, the petitioner's case was found proved on a civil standard of proof. The role of the external examiner did not displace the possibility of unfair marking, and the external examiner's absence from the proceedings weighed against the explanation offered.

Conclusion: The petitioner established that the Physics practical marks were the product of hostile animus and bad faith.

Final Conclusion: The practical examination in Physics was set aside and directed to be conducted again at the earliest, with consequential costs against the examiner found responsible.

Ratio Decidendi: An examiner's assessment of a student in a practical examination, though discretionary, is a public function that must be exercised fairly, and where the result is shown on a balance of probabilities to be tainted by bad faith, mala fides, or improper conduct, the result may be quashed and a fresh examination ordered under the governing regulations.

---