10376/2019 and 9486/2019 ordering/directing the re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the respective original writ petitioners who appeared in post-graduation in diploma course in the NTR University of Health Sciences (appellant herein), the University has preferred the present appeals. 1
The learned Single Judge called for the record and after perusing the record, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the evaluation of the answer scripts was not in line with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge issued in the earlier round of litigation and that there was no proper evaluation of the answer scripts. Before the Division Bench, it was specifically contended on behalf of the appellant – University that as there was no provision for re-evaluation and therefore in absence of having any such provision, the learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering re-evaluation.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the results for the final year PG Degree/Diploma examination pertaining to respondent Nos.1-23 have already been declared.
However, as observed in order dated 9.4.2021 that number of matters are pending in the High Court on the same point, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has prayed to consider the issue on merits, namely, “whether, in absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was justified in ordering re- evaluation, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”? Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has vehemently submitted that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-enhanced-tuition-fee-in-private-medical-colleges/
It is submitted that after satisfying the pilot project for digital evaluation, the University placed the same in 221 meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.07.2016 and the Executive Council verified the method of digital evaluation and the services of the nodal company under the supervision of the University. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original writ petitioners have submitted that so far as the original writ petitioners are concerned, as they are declared pass after re-evaluation and/or appearing in the supplementary examination and their results have been declared and they are awarded degrees, the same may not be disturbed as observed by this Court in order dated 9.4.2021.
Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination.
Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination — whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited 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.
Even otherwise, in the present case, the University has adopted the digital evaluation which has been subsequently modified/improved and the deficiencies have been removed, which has now been approved by the High Court in the recent decision in Writ Petition No 15865/2022.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts in absence of any such provision in the relevant rules are hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Case Title: DR NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Vs. DR. YERRA TRINADH (2022 INSC 1172)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008037-008037 / 2022
