Disapproving Allahabad High Court ordering re-evaluation of answer-sheets, the Supreme Court has advised them to refraim from doing so in absence of any statutory provisions.
The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari re-iterated the findings of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2017 Latest Caselaw 880 SC.
""if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.""
The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal filed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra against Allahabad High Court ruling whereby the Court has allowed the writ petitionof the respondent-student seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-checking of his answer sheet of Paper-II of the subject Physiology through different examiners and to accept the amended result, if marks were increased in re-checking.
The Counsel for appellant-university argued that the procedure as adopted and the directions as issued in the present case by the High Court are of uncontrollable ramifications, and do not stand in conformity with the requirements of law. It was submitted that when the Statute of the University makes no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets, directions by the High Court practically make the Statute of the University redundant and that remains impermissible in law.
He cited H.P.Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & ANR., 2010 Latest Caselaw 404 SC, Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2017 Latest Caselaw 880 SC.
He also submitted that the High Court has failed to consider that the question paper being a subjective one, the marking style and manner of different examiners cannot be equated as it has not been a case of objective type question paper where only one answer out of possible options may be correct. It has further been submitted that the original examiner had, in fact, scored out the other answers while giving no marks, which was equivalent to awarding ‘zero’ mark; and his style of awarding marks could not have been taken as an irresponsible manner of evaluation.
The Court noted that courts shouldn't enter the arena of assessment which is 'subjective' in nature and are dependent largely on discretion of examiner/evaluator.
"It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing the examination in question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. Therefore, in the ordinary circumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the process as adopted by the High Court could not have been given our imprimatur," it stated.
The Court, however refused to interfere with the impugned judgement in view of the peculiar facts and exceptional circumstances of the present case.
"We are refraining from interfering in the substantive part of
the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasons
that a direct prohibition in the Statute in question has not been shown;
the original examiner seems to have totally omitted to award the marks
in relation to answer Nos. 2, 5(a) and 5(b); the process of evaluation
by other examiners has been adopted and taken forward by the High Court
by providing for awarding of average of the marks of the three
examiners; and any interference at this length of time might entail
serious adverse consequences to the writ petitioner."The Court though did make it clear, in no uncertain terms that non-interference in the present case is not to be construed as any endorsement to the process adopted by the High Court.
"It gets perforce reiterated that one particular fault or infirmity at one particular level, when being appropriately dealt with by the Court, cannot be generalised and all other similar processes in any institution or by the person concerned cannot be presumed to be suffering from illegalities or infirmities. The High Court in the present case, while expressing its dissatisfaction, and presumably to provide for a cleansing process, has inexplicably travelled far beyond the issues at hand and has issued untenable directions apart from making unnecessary observations. All this, in our view, was avoidable; and ought to have been avoided."
CASE TITLE: DR. B R AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA versus DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS., 2010 Latest Caselaw 404 SC
CASE DETAILS: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2023 (Arising from SLP(C) No. 27252/2019)
CORAM: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
CITATION: 2010 Latest Caselaw 404 SC
Advocates for Petitioner:
Advocates for Respondent:
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments