While dealing with the writ petition aforesaid, the High Court, after taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, got the 1 answer sheet in question re-evaluated from three different examiners and, after noticing that the re-evaluated marks awarded by three different examiners were broadly similar but were much higher than the original marks, ordered that average of the marks so awarded by the three examiners be awarded to the writ petitioner in relation to the said Paper-II of Physiology.
Yet further, the High Court provided that if any student who had appeared in the examination of the University in the preceding three years were to apply for re-assessment/re- evaluation, the same be not declined only on the ground that no such procedure was prescribed in the Statute of the University. Dissatisfied with the marks so awarded, the writ petitioner obtained a copy of the answer sheet of the said Paper-II of Physiology and also applied for scrutiny of marks and re-checking of answer sheet. The High Court further took note of the fact that as per the copy of answer sheet supplied to the writ petitioner, virtually it was not evaluated by the examiner and without application of mind, abruptly 2 3 marks each were awarded in relation to three answers. In the original marks awarded, petitioner has been given 2 marks each in questions 1, 3 and 4 while in questions 2, 5(a) and 5(b) all the three Examiners, who have made evaluation under the orders of this Court have awarded reasonably good or some marks to petitioners. The High Court further made various comments as regards career of the students and the requirements of improving the education system while curbing such infirmities where the examiners/evaluators were not serious enough in discharge of their duties. Having said so, the High Court reverted to the facts of the case and found it just and proper to direct the appellant- University to award the average of the marks awarded by the said three examiners to the writ petitioner and thus, to treat that he has been awarded 20 marks in the said Paper-II of Physiology, and to allow him to appear in further examinations accordingly. The High Court also expressed hope and trust that the 5 appellant-University would take appropriate steps so that such examiners/evaluators were not deployed to evaluate the answer sheets. We hope and trust that Agra University, now shall take appropriate steps so that such irresponsible, scrupulous, unmindful and negligent Examiners/Evaluators are not deployed in future to evaluate answer sheets, whether it is a professional examination or general subjects or otherwise. Copy of this judgment be also forwarded to Principal Secretary (Higher Education) as well as Secretary (Secondary Education), so that they may also look into the matter and ensure that Examiners/Evaluators of answer sheets are deployed in a reasonably efficient manner and there should be strict instructions so that no student may suffer on account of negligence/carelessness etc.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length in relation to the observations made and the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. It has also been 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. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, while we do not feel inclined to upset the substantive relief granted to the writ petitioner in paragraph 29 of the impugned order in the peculiar circumstances of the case but, we have not an iota of doubt that all other directions and mandate issued by the High Court in the order impugned cannot be approved.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-jurisdiction-in-re-appraising-arbitrators-findings/
[(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543], wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision.
But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court 9 cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.” This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.”
***** ***** ***** 26.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/contrary-directions-in-issuance-of-letter-of-intent/
If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2.
: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520, this Court has, after referring to the previous decisions, including that in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), thoroughly disapproved the process of the Court calling for answer sheets for satisfying as to whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter, issuing directions for re-evaluation. 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. Moving on to the other relevant aspects of the matter emanating from the observations and directions in the order impugned, we are clearly of the view that even if we do not disturb the relief of award of modified marks as granted to the writ petitioner, the other observations and directions in the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 cannot be approved. Yet further, 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 the said paragraph 32, the High Court has proceeded to issue directions in the manner that all the examinations of the appellant-University during the preceding three years are thrown open for re-assessment or re- evaluation. In a matter of the present nature, 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.
As aforesaid, we would not be re-opening any concluded matter which is not in challenge before us but, with respect, we need to observe that the directions contained in paragraph 32 of the order impugned remain wholly untenable and are required to be annulled all together.
Case Title: DR. BR AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY AGRA Vs. DEVARSH NATH GUPTA (2023 INSC 721)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001141-001141 / 2023
