Case Law Details

Case Name : V. Venkata Siva Kumar Vs 1.Union of India (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/04/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3668) Madras High Court (269)


(Mistakes /Errors committed by respondent 2 while setting and evaluating the papers which would have a direct impact on the marks obtained by the students)

Strategic Financial Management – Group I Paper 2

Question No.



Marks Allotted

3 (a)


Business valuations


3 (b)


Convertible Debentures





 Advanced Management Accounting Group II Paper 5

Question No.


Marks Allotted

1 (b) Incremental Cost *


1 (d) Total Quality Management


3 (a) Activity Based Costing*


3 (b) Transfer Pricing


4 (b) Step Fixed Cost – CVP Analysis*


6 (a) Network Analysis





  • Mistakes admitted by the Respondent 2- Paper 5- Q. 3(b)= 8 marks
  • Mistakes apparent on the face of the record- Paper 5- Q.1. (b),1 (d), 3(a), 6(a)= 24 marks , Paper 2- Q.3(a), 3(b)= 16 marks
  • Mistakes confirmed by experts and subject to interpretation- Paper 5- Q.4 (b)= 6 marks


  • Sahiti and Ors. Vs. Respondent: The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors 6202 of 2008/ Decided on 22.10.2008.

-“The above decision deals with the right of the student or candidate to claim re-examination/re evaluation of his answer sheet and the power of the High Court to order revaluation of answer sheets. It does not deal with the power of the Board to order re-evaluation of answer books if factual scenario so demands. Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found necessary. There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts are necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters”.

Brief Comments and Suggestion for revaluation necessitated because of the mistake of the respondent:

The Normal Practice in all the exams is to give Full Credit for the student who attempts the wrong question. But in this type of professional exams where students of high preparation when they see the question is wrong or confusing they may not like to take a risk and solve them. So the marks obtained by the student should be suitably adjusted, for example, if the actual marks awarded to the student is say 31% in Paper 5, His marks must be changed to (31/62)*100 = 50 Marks. This method should be the best in our opinion as the student must solve all the questions, as they are compulsory and if he is declared fail he must reappear all the four papers in the group again.

While considering the above we should first take into consideration the psychology of the student who will have to write answer to the question asked. If there is confusion because of the errors, the student will not be in a position to handle it. If we take Question no. 3(a) in SFM, even a normal person will know that it is a glaring mistake but the institute solved it with the mistake and awarded marks for the students who did the mistake. So, if a student identifies the mistake (no one will take the risk), he would not have got marks.

Let us take a similar situation, Question No. 1(b) or 3 (b) in paper 5, in spite of being asked wrongly they were solved after taking into consideration the mistake. Thus a student who identifies the mistake and solves would have got marks (total confusion and lack of clarity arising out of the wrong setting of the papers).

Question No. 3 (a), the answer given assumes that introduction of ABC will reduce the cost which is a total mistake, as ABC helps only in scientific ascertainment of cost of a product and it is not a tool of cost reduction. So, no student would have answered according the examiners expectation and would have got very low marks for the correct answer.

Question No. 4 (b), the workings given in the answer are not asked in the question. First of all the question should have been asked to calculate the Break Even Point. Whereas the actual question is to calculate the number of students required to cross the Break Even Point. Crossing may be just crossing or anything more. No student would have done the working as it was not asked. So, he would have lost marks for the same on account of the fault of the respondent.

Question No. 1 (d), inspection of raw material is taken as a preventive cost in the suggested answer. The Same question was asked in May 2011 where the suggested answer says it is an appraisal cost. So, if one is correct the other should have been wrong even according to the respondent 2.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under CA, CS, CMA

Posted Under

Category : CA, CS, CMA (3486)
Type : Featured (4134) Judiciary (9907)
Tags : high court judgments (3975)

0 responses to “PIL against alleged mistakes in CA Final November 2011 Exams”

  1. suzi says:

    a great job done sir. hats off to you for trying to help the students even when there is no benefit for you. but hope the court takes a quick decision. waiting with great anticipation.

  2. raj says:

    hello sir u have done a great job. Hatsoff to you. V wl give our full support to you.
    thank you very much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *