Constitution of India :Art. 226 – Exercise of power under – Order as regards re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts – Justification of – Writ of Mandamus by respondent No. 1 seeking re-checking of answer sheet of the paper of the physiology subject through different examiners and to accept the amended result if marks were increased in re-checking – High Court allowed the writ petition by awarding the respondent no. 1, the average of the marks awarded by the three examiners – High Court further awarded Rs.
1 lakh cost to respondent no. 1, gave liberty to the students who appeared in preceding three years for applying for re-evaluation, and also directed that the copy of judgment to be sent to Secretaries of concerned Departments to ensure that the examiners/evaluators be deployed in reasonably efficient manner – On appeal, held: Statute governing the examination does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets – 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 – Decision of Court of law ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination in the matter – Imposition of costs not in consonance with subject-matter – Direction to Principal Secretary not of specific nature and cannot be implemented with certainty – All concluded matters cannot be re-opened – If the assessment by one examiner/evaluator is found questionable, all the examiner could not be presumed to be irresponsible and every result declared by the University could not be reopened – Substantive relief of award of average marks to the respondent no. 1 not disturbed and other directions set aside.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 13][483-D-E]
1.2 At any rate, in the adjudicatory process dealing with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus with reference to the grievance of the writ petitioner and the facts emerging on record, the observations as to the status of teachers in the society and other co-related observations were not even required. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the High Court was impelled to make such observations for its anguish in view of the infirmities referable to the original examiner, imposition of costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appear congruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistent with role of the University. [Para 15][484-B-D]
1.3 Forwarding a copy of the judgment to the Principal Secretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (Secondary Education) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’ does not appear to be of giving specific directions which are capable of implementation with certainty. In any case, such general expectations of reasonable efficiency are applicable to every area of activity, whether of an individual or of the State or of an instrumentality of the State but, stating such expectations as a part of mandamus of the Court cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements of concluding an adjudicatory process with certitude. In other words, while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would be expected to issue only such directions which could be executed/implemented with certainty. The observations of the nature made by the High Court, which are largely of general expectations, are difficult to be approved as a mandamus from the writ Court. [Para 16][484-E-G]
1.4 The High Court proceeded to issue directions in the manner that all the examinations of the appellant-University during the preceding three years are thrown open for reassessment or re- evaluation. There is no logic or rationale in such directions, and is disapproved. When there is no provision for re- evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of any writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to issuing directions for doing something which is not provided for by law. [Para 17, 17.2][484-G-H; 485-F]
1.5 In a Court of law, when a particular litigation in reference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re- opened. If the assessment by one examiner/evaluator has been found questionable by the High Court, neither all the examiners could be presumed to be irresponsible nor every result declared by the University could be re-opened. [Para 17.1][485-B-C]
1.6 Even if the Court is to express its dissatisfaction as regards any particular state of affairs, the circumspection requisite of the Court even as regards the expressions cannot be forsaken; and the relief to be granted in a given case ought to remain confined to the subject-matter of litigation before the 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 was avoidable; and ought to have been avoided. [Para 18][485G-H; 486-A-B]
1.7 While not disturbing the directions and mandate in paragraph 29 of the order impugned as also the expressions of hope and trust in paragraph 31 of the order impugned, the directions contained in paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the order impugned cannot be approved and are set aside. [Para 19][486C-D] Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur and Another (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010]
7 SCR 189; Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017]
12 SCR 95; Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.