1. Professional examination failure — Writ petition for re-checking of answer sheet and amended result — High Court order for re-evaluation and general administrative directions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 322
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University – Appellant
Versus
Devarsh Nath Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1141 of 2023
Decided on : 14-02-2023
Important Points
Courts should generally not order re-evaluation of answer sheets if the governing statute or rules do not provide for it. While exceptional cases may allow substantive relief, courts must avoid issuing general directions to reopen concluded examinations or mandates extending beyond the specific subject matter of the litigation.
Subject
Civil Law - Education Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Mandamus - Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets - Act 2005, Statute of the University - The judgment discusses the re-evaluation of answer sheets and issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-checking. The court examined the relevant background aspects, including the nature of the order passed by the High Court and challenge thereto in the present appeal. It also considered the principles established in previous cases regarding re-evaluation and scrutiny of answer sheets.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-University appealed against a judgment allowing a writ petition seeking re-checking of an answer sheet and issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-evaluation.Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the substantive relief granted to the writ petitioner but disapproved other directions issued by the High Court, particularly those related to costs, deployment of examiners/evaluators, and reopening concluded matters.Issues:
The main issue was whether the directions issued by the High Court were in conformity with legal requirements.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, courts should not generally direct re-evaluation. It also highlighted that academic matters are best left to academics and that courts should presume correctness in examination processes.Final Decision:
The appeal succeeded in part, annulling certain directions contained in the impugned order while upholding relief given to the writ petitioner.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv., Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Ms. Raveesha Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv., , Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv., Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv., Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR, Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv., Mrs. Shamama Anis, Adv, Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad, AAG, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR, Ms. Marbiang N. Khanwir, Adv., Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv., Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Ms. Raveesha Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv., , Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv., Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv., Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR, Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv., Mrs. Shamama Anis, Adv, Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad, AAG, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR, Ms. Marbiang N. Khanwir, Adv., Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. University contends absence of statutory provision for re-evaluation makes High Court's order impermissible — Student argues examiner's failure to evaluate answer sheet justifies the relief. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Court observed that while re-evaluation is generally impermissible without statutory provision, exceptional circumstances may justify relief — High Court's general directions exceeded the scope of litigation. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. In the absence of statutory provision, courts should not generally direct re-evaluation — Relief granted in litigation must remain confined to the specific subject matter of the dispute. (Para 12 , 18 )
5. Appeal allowed in part — High Court's directions regarding costs, general re-evaluation for other students, and administrative notifications set aside — Substantive relief of modified marks upheld. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
6. Can a court order re-evaluation of answer sheets if the university statutes do not provide for it?
Generally, no. In the absence of statutory rules or regulations, courts should not direct re-evaluation. However, in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning, a court may permit it. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Is it permissible for a High Court to call for answer scripts to determine if re-evaluation is necessary?
No. The Supreme Court has disapproved the practice of High Courts calling for answer scripts to satisfy themselves whether re-evaluation is needed and subsequently ordering it, especially in the absence of specific statutory provisions. (Para 13 )
8. To what extent can a court grant ancillary reliefs or directions in a specific litigation?
Relief and directions must remain confined to the subject matter of the litigation. A court cannot generalize a particular fault by one individual to reopen all concluded matters or issue general administrative mandates beyond the controversy. (Para 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. Having regard to a short point involved, we have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties finally at this stage itself.
3. The appellant–Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant-University’.] has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.05.2019, as passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 871 of 2019, whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 12[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’], seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-checking of his answer sheet of Paper-II of the subject Physiology through different examiners and to accept the amended result, if marks were increased in re-checking.
3.1. While dealing with the writ petition aforesaid, the High Court, after taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, got the 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. Not only this, the High Court further proceeded to award costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioner with liberty to the appellant-University to recover the amount from the examiner concerned, after such inquiry as provided in law. 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. The High Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Secretaries of Higher Education and Secondary Education Departments to look into the matter and to ensure that evaluators were deployed ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’.
4. With reference to the subject-matter of the writ petition, the nature of order passed by the High Court and challenge thereto in the present appeal, we may take note of the relevant background aspects, in brief, as follows:
4.1. The writ petitioner of this case (respondent No. 1 herein), being a student of M.B.B.S. Course at S.N. Medical College, Agra, affiliated to the appellant-University, appeared in M.B.B.S. (1st Professional) Examination held in the month of December, 2018. In the result of the said examination, the writ petitioner was declared as failed even after securing 344 marks out 600 for the reason that in Paper-II of Physiology, he got only 6 marks out of 50.
4.2. 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. When no action was taken by the appellant-University for scrutiny or rechecking, the writ petitioner approached the High Court, seeking the following reliefs:-
“A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to get the answer sheet of the Petitioner be rechecked through different examiner so that a proper checking of the answer-sheet of the Petitioner for Paper-II subject Physiology for M.B.B.S. (1st-Prof) Examination 2018 is done and it is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to direct the Respondents that in case the marks of the Petitioner are increased in the rechecking then an amended result may also be issued in favour of the Petitioner within a stipulated time as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.
B. To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
C. Award cost of the petition in favou
