Constitution of India – Article 226 – Re-evaluation of answer sheets ordered, in absence of such provision in relevant rules – Not justified – Original writ petitioners appeared in post-graduation diploma course conducted by appellant-University – Digital evaluation of answer scripts – Writ petitions filed by respective students praying for re-evaluation – Single Judge ordered reevaluation of the answer scripts – Order confirmed by Division Bench – On appeal, held : In absence of any regulation for reevaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the University Rules, High Court not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts – Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers u/Article 226 is disapproved – Judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – However, as the results of the original writ petitioners after re-evaluation or appearing in the supplementary examination have been declared, the same shall not be affected and/or disturbed – Deprecation. Deprecation – Re-evaluation of answer scripts ordered after perusing the record –– Held: High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not – As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible.
Judicial Review – Scope of – Re-evaluation of answer sheets – Held: Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics – In absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand re-evaluation – Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet.
Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 714) : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 309 : 2020 (12) JT 202; Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017] 12 SCR 95 – relied on.
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.