Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General – Appellant
Versus
Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2019 and SLP(C) No. 12624 of 2018
Decided On : 06-02-2019
(2001) 5 SCC 37; (2011) 4 SCC 602 – Referred
(b) Administration of justice – Re-evaluation of answer sheets – No legal right to claim or ask for revaluation accrues in absence of any provision for revaluation – In case of doubt benefit should go examination authorities rather than the candidate – A case where no marks were given despite the answer being correct stands on different footing – High Court will have jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India even in absence of any provision for revaluation – Revaluation will be permissible in case of material error in evaluation of answer sheet – However this will not permissible after a long lapse of time disregarding supervening circumstances. (Para 18, 19, 22)
(2004) 6 SCC 714; (2018) 2 SCC 357; (2010) 6 SCC 759; (1984) 4 SCC 27; (2014) 14 SCC 523; (2018) 2 SCC 357 – Relied upon
(2001) 5 SCC 37 – Referred
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XVII Rule 1 – not more than three adjournments permissible – Supreme Court will not interfere where examining body proceeded under Rule 1. (Para 25)
(2005) 6 SCC 344 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Applications were invited from practicing Advocates for appointment as Grade-I in Tripura Judicial Service against 3 vacancies. The result of the main examination was declared in which Respondent No. 1 was declared as not qualified. He sought disclosure of marks under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, he was allowed to inspect his answer scripts on 01.11.2011. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 after inspection of the answer sheets that some correct answers were found marked as incorrect. He secured 175 marks out of 300. Thus, he was 5 marks short to be shortlisted for appearing for the interview as the requirement was 60%. He filed Writ Petition seeking re-evaluation of his answer papers in Papers I, II and III and declaring the decision holding him as not qualified for the interview as null and void which was dismissed. The SLP thereagainst was also dismissed.
In review, noting that long time has elapsed the Writ Petition was allowed by directing the Registrar General of the Tripura High Court to get the answer sheet scripts pertaining to Papers II and III of the main examination re-evaluated.
Finding of the Court:
High Court, under Article 226, may direct re-evaluation of answer sheets even in absence of any provision to that effect having due regard to supervening circumstances.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The High Court has the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct re-evaluation of answer sheets even in the absence of specific provisions permitting such re-evaluation, especially when supervening circumstances justify it (!) .
Re-evaluation of answer sheets is generally not a right that candidates can claim unless explicitly provided for in rules or regulations. In the absence of such provisions, re-evaluation is only permissible if there is a clear material error in evaluation, such as incorrect marking of correct answers (!) .
The court’s intervention in re-evaluation should be limited to cases where a patent error is evident; it should not substitute the examiner’s judgment or undertake re-evaluation as a super examiner (!) .
Long delays in seeking re-evaluation and subsequent developments, such as new selections, are relevant factors that courts consider when deciding whether to permit re-evaluation or review of examination results (!) .
The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to order re-evaluation or scrutiny is exceptional and should be confined to cases where there is a demonstrable, clear material error without any inference or rationalization, and only in rare or exceptional circumstances (!) (!) .
Courts should favor the examination authority’s evaluation in cases of doubt, and the benefit of the doubt should generally go to the authority rather than the candidate (!) .
The absence of a specific rule or regulation allowing re-evaluation limits the court’s power to direct such re-evaluation, and courts should exercise caution to prevent practical difficulties and delays in the examination process (!) (!) .
Even when there is no explicit provision for re-evaluation, courts may exercise their inherent powers in rare and exceptional cases where a grave injustice is apparent, such as when correct answers are not awarded marks due to evaluation errors (!) (!) .
The decision to allow or refuse re-evaluation or review depends on the timing, supervening events, and whether subsequent developments have rendered the case moot or impacted the fairness of the process (!) (!) .
The court’s discretion in such matters should be exercised with caution, ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice are upheld without undermining the integrity of the examination process (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The appeal by Special Leave is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Gauhati dated 19.03.2018 in Review Petition No. 21 of 2018. By the impugned order, the Review Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 against the dismissal of his Writ Petition, has been allowed and the Court has directed the re-evaluation of his answer papers in regard to the selection to the post of Grade-I in Tripura Judicial Service.
2. By advertisement dated 18.01.2011, applications were invited from practicing Advocates for appointment as Grade-I in Tripura Judicial Service. 3 vacancies were notified. Pursuant to the advertisement, Respondent No. 1 appeared in preliminary examination held on 12.06.2011. The results were declared on 24.06.2011. The petitioner along with 16 other candidates were shown as qualified. The main examination was held on 30.07.2011 and 31.07.2011. The written examination comprised of 3 papers. The result of the main examination was declared on 29.09.2011 in which Respondent No. 1 was declared as not qualified. He sought disclosure of marks under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, he was allowed to inspect his answer scripts on 01.11.2011. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that some correct answers were found marked as incorrect. He secured 175 marks out of 300. Thus, he was 5 marks short to be shortlisted for appearing for the interview as the requirement was 60%. He filed Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2012 seeking re-evaluation of his answer papers in Papers I, II and III and declaring the decision holding him as not qualified for the interview as null and void. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 12.12.2012. The respondent filed Special Leave Petition before this Court which was dismissed on 23.07.2013. It is, thereafter, he filed the Review Petition. In the Review Petition, the High Court finds that under the 2003 Rules, which apparently governed the conduct of the examination, there is no provision for re evaluation of answer scripts. It was, however, found that there is no prohibition against re-evaluation provided it finds any patent error. This may include not awarding any marks for a correct answer or treating a correct answer to be an incorrect answer. The Court, no doubt notes it has to be bear in mind that it cannot step into the shoes of the examiner and undertake the exercise of re-evaluation like a super examiner. Thereafter, the following finding is rendered:-
“25. We have gone through the answer scripts of the petitioner both in Paper- I and Paper-II. To us, answers given in respect of Question Nos. 3 (xiii), 2(xviii) and 3(xv) of Paper II which were marked as incorrect answers and Question No. 1(xiv) of Paper II for which no marks were awarded may require a re-look. However, we hasten to add that we have not expressed any final opinion in this regard.”
3. Regarding the case set up by the petitioner based on the dismissal of the Writ Petition, it was found based on adjudication related to Paper-III and that it did not adjudicate the grievance of respondent No. 1 in respect of Papers I and II, as perhaps, it was not highlighted by the respondent No. 1. Noting that long time has elapsed the Court allowed the Writ Petition and modified the Judgment by which the Writ Petition was dismissed and the Court directed the Registrar General of the Tripura High Court to re evaluate the answer sheet scripts pertaining to Papers II and III of the main examination re-evaluated. For this purpose, the answer papers in the custody of Gauhati High Court was to be transmitted in sealed cover to the Registrar General, Tripura High Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the judgment of this Court in K. Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy, 2001 (5) SCC 37. As per the said decision, it is contended that the Review Petition in this case, was not maintain
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
