1. Recruitment for teachers — Challenge to answer keys — Dispute over re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of statutory provisions under the governing Act and Rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 367, 355, 354, 356-357, 358 & 366 of 2017
Decided On : 11-12-2017
Important Points
Courts should not generally direct re-evaluation of answer sheets absent statutory provisions. Interference is permitted only in rare, exceptional cases where material errors are clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning. Courts must defer to academic experts and presume the correctness of key answers.
Subject
Examination - Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
MAHARASHTRA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARDS REGULATIONS: Reg.104
MAHARASHTRA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARDS REGULATIONS: Reg.104
Headnote
LABOUR & SERVICES - Appointment - Appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act (5 of 1982), Section 16: Examination for - Revaluation of answer books - Held, For re-valuation of mark-sheets, following are directions/highlights in respect of matter. They are: (i) If statute, Rule or Regulation governing examination permits re-evaluation of answer sheet or scrutiny of answer sheet as matter of right, then authority conducting examination may permit it; (ii) If statute, Rule or Regulation governing examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any 'inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalization' and only in rare or exceptional cases that material error has been committed; (iii) Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize answer sheets of candidate-it has no expertise in matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) Court should presume correctness of key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In event of doubt, benefit should go to examination authority rather than to candidate. Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet. If error is committed by examination authority, complete body of candidates suffers. Entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by erroneous question or erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court could order re-evaluation of answer sheets despite the absence of statutory provisions for such a process in the governing Act and Rules. (Para 17 )
3. Courts should avoid interfering in academic matters and re-evaluating answer sheets due to lack of expertise, unless a material error is clearly demonstrated in exceptional cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. In the absence of statutory provisions, re-evaluation is impermissible except in rare cases where material error is clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning. (Para 30 )
5. Third results to be declared — Existing appointees protected — Newly selected candidates to be accommodated through supernumerary posts. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
6. Does a candidate have a right to demand re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of statutory provisions?
No. In the absence of a specific provision conferring such a right, no direction for re-evaluation can be issued, as the principles of natural justice do not extend to allowing candidates to participate in the evaluation process or verify the correctness of the evaluation. (Para 23 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
7. To what extent can courts interfere with the correctness of answer keys in public examinations?
Courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute their views for those of experts in academic matters. Interference is permissible only in rare and exceptional situations where a material error is clearly demonstrated without any inferential process of reasoning or rationalisation. (Para 18 , 19 , 30 )
8. What is the legal presumption regarding the correctness of answer keys provided by examination authorities?
Key answers are presumed correct unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. The burden of proof lies heavily on the candidate to prove the answer is wrong, and in cases of doubt, the benefit goes to the examination authority. (Para 19 , 30 )
9. What is the recommended remedy when a question in a public examination is found to be suspect or erroneous?
To avoid derailing the entire examination process and causing prolonged uncertainty, the court recommends excluding the suspect or offending question rather than ordering a general re-evaluation of answer sheets. (Para 19 , 31 )
JUDGMENT :
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. What a mess! This is perhaps the only way to describe the events that have transpired in the examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. We have reached the present stage of judgment after eight long years of uncertainty for, and three evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than 36,000 candidates who took the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers way back in January 2009. Hopefully today, their travails, as those of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, will come to a satisfactory end.
2. On 15th January, 2009 the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (for short the “Board”) published an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science. The recruitment was to be in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held pursuant to the advertisement and the result of the written examination was declared by the Board on 18th June, 2010. It may be mentioned that the written examination was based on multiple choice answers which were to be scanned on OMR sheets.
4. The candidates who qualified in the written examination were called for an interview held between 16th and 26th July, 2010. Eventually, the combined result (written examination and interview) was declared on 14th September, 2010. According to the appellants, they were successful in the written examination as well as in the interview and were amongst those who were in the select list for recruitment.
5. Some candidates who were not successful in the written examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between 2010 and 2011. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions were that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing writ petitions on the decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur , (2010) 6 SCC 759 in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier decisions and held:
“Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.”
6. Another batch of writ petitions (having 77 writ petitioners) came to be listed before another learned Single Judge of the High Court. The subject and issues were the same and the learned Single Judge admitted these writ petitions for final hearing notwithstanding the dismissal of several similar petitions. The challenge made by the writ petitioners was to seven questions/answers in the written examination which, according to them, had incorrect key answers. The learned Single Judge personally examined those seven questions and concluded that:
(a) The correct answer of question no. 24 in History paper would be option (1).
(b) For question no. 25, History paper, option (2) is correct.
(c) Option (2) is the correct answer of question no. 36 of History paper.
(d) Option (2) is correct answer in respect to question no. 37 of History paper.
(e) Question no. 40 of History paper is wrongly framed.
(f) In question no. 43, there may be two correct answers, i.e. options (1) and (3).
(g) In question no.32 of Civics Paper, option (3) would be the correct answer.
The learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe:
“It cannot be doubted that being a selection body for appointment of Teachers in Secondary Schools, the Selection Board was under a pious as well as statutory obligation to hold selection very carefully, meticulously and in the most honest and correct manner. The job
