The court lacks jurisdiction to re-evaluate examination marks or direct examiners on marking, emphasizing the autonomy of academic evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner, in person, is also present and requested that she wants to address this Court also on her grievance. Though the petitioner is represented by the learned counsel, yet I heard the petitioner in person also.

2. During course of the argument, it is stated that marks in respect of Question No.1 has not been properly allotted. She has seen the answer-sheet, wherein she was awarded 5 marks, but while totaling only 3 marks were added. She further submits that in precise writing, marks have not properly allotted as no mark has been given for the heading, which normally is given in all precise writing. It is also her case that in respect of Question No.8, full marks being 3, yet, 2 marks were awarded in some of the answers. She submits that if the answers were wrong petitioner should either get ‘0’ or if the answers were correct, full marks ought to have been awarded.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JPSC submits that the petitioner was given opportunity to go through the answer sheets. This Court has got no jurisdiction to re-apprise or re-evaluate answer sheets and cannot direct the examiner to award marks in a particular manner.

4. Petitioner, in this writ petition has prayed for commanding upon the respondents to recalculate/re-total the marks and to re-evaluate, particularly question No.1, 6 and 8 of the Nagpuri language paper of the Mains Examination held pursuant to Advertisement No.03/2018.

5. Considering the prayer and the arguments, on the last date, i.e., 22.01.2025, this Court called for answer-sheets of the petitioner, in order to satisfy about the totaling of the marks, to assess whether the marks of the petitioner was correctly added or not.

6. Today, the answer-sheet of the petitioner has been produced before me. After going through the answer-sheets, I find that the petitioner has got 30 marks in total. In the first question, the petitioner was awarded 3 marks. Though, the numerical ‘3’ written on the answer-sheet, if seen cursorily, will give an impression that it is ‘5’, but if it is seen properly, there is no doubt that the marks awarded is ‘3’ and not ‘5’. After totaling the marks, which the petitioner has received in respect of the answers, I find that the total comes to ‘30’, which the examiner has awarded. There is no error in totaling.

7. So far as other contention of the petitioner is concerned, this Court cannot re-evaluate the answers of the petitioner. This Court also does not have jurisdiction to direct the examiner to evaluate a particular question in a particular manner. It is absolutely within the domain of the examiner to award marks and evaluate an answer-sheet in a particular manner.

8. After going through the question paper, I find that Question No.6 contained 5 marks and there is no division of marks mentioned in question paper also. In question No.6, petitioner has obtained 3 marks. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the marks should have been divided is without any basis. So far as question No.8 is concerned, I find that the same has been evaluated and marks have been awarded for each of the answers. The petitioner has answered 2 questions extra in question No.8, which was naturally not evaluated, being extra. There is no error in the totaling of the marks also.

9. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that there is a rule or regulation governing this examination, which permits, re-evaluation of answer-sheets or scrutiny of the answer-sheets as a matter of right. This Court cannot re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheets of a candidate as this Court does not have an expertise in the academics, which is best left to the examiner. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 and in the case of High Court of Tripura versus Tirth Sarath