Supreme Court of India
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 1209
- Decided
- 11 December 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- MADAN B LOKUR
Holding
Courts may interfere with examination results only in rare, exceptional cases where a material error is clearly established; otherwise they must presume the correctness of answer keys and cannot re‑evaluate answer sheets.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a long‑running recruitment examination for Trained Graduate Teachers in Uttar Pradesh, where over 36,000 candidates sat for a written test in 2009 and subsequent interview. Unsuccessful candidates sought re‑evaluation of answer sheets alleging errors in the key answers, leading a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to order a re‑evaluation and later a Division Bench to refer disputed questions to an expert committee, resulting in a third evaluation after eight years. The Court considered whether, in the absence of a statutory provision permitting re‑evaluation, courts may intervene in examination results, and held that such interference is permissible only in rare, exceptional cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated. It emphasized that courts must presume the correctness of answer keys, should not re‑evaluate answer sheets themselves, and that sympathy cannot justify re‑evaluation. Consequently, the Court ordered the declaration of the third set of results, allowed existing teachers to retain their posts even if they are later found unsuccessful, and directed the appointment of newly selected teachers on a super‑numerary basis without benefits. The appeals were disposed of.
Issues considered
- The statutory framework (U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982) provides any right to re‑evaluation or inspection of answer sheets?
- Whether courts may interfere with or order re‑evaluation of public examination answer sheets in the absence of such statutory provision?
- What standard of proof is required to demonstrate a material error in answer keys?
- What is the appropriate remedy to resolve the protracted examination dispute while ensuring finality of results?
Legislation cited
Subjects
public examinationre‑evaluation of answer sheetsjudicial interferencefinality of resultsservice lawrecruitmentjudicial disciplineexam answer key
Judgment
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 95
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 etc.)
December 11, 2017 B
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service law : Recruitment - Post of Trained Graduate
Teachers in Social Science - Written examination and interview held
- Select list for recruitment - Re-evaluation of answer sheets sought C
by unsuccessful candidates - Interference by tlie courts in written
examination results, resulting in third evaluation of answer sheets -
Held: Courts should interfere in the results of m1 examination in
rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent -
Interference by the Courts places the examination authorities under
scrutiny and not the candidates - No doubt that candidates put in a D
tremendous effort in prepanng for an examination, even the
examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully
conduct an examination - Enormity of the task might reveal some
lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks
and balances put in place by the examination authorities before
E
interfering - On facts, even after lapse of eight years, examination
for recruitment of the teachers has not attained finality - Single
Judge took it upon itself to ascertain the correctness of the key
answers to seven questions, which was completely beyond his
jurisdiction and the exercise carried out was impermissible -
Division Bench erred in sending four key answers for consideration F
by a one-man Expert Committee - Both the High Courts ought to
have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the
correctness of the key answers - Revaluation, cancellation,
whichever option is chosen, there would be some candidates who
are likely to suffer and lose their jobs - Thus, under the circumstances G
of the case, the middle path is taken, which is to declare the third
set of results - Candidates working as Trained Graduate Teachers
pursuant to the earlier declaration of results, if found unsuccessful
on the third declaration of results, should be allowed to continue -
New candidates selected, consequent upon the third set of results to
H
95
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R.
A
.
be accommodated since they were erroneously not selected on earlier
occasions.
- U.P. Secondary Education Sen1ices Selection Board Act, 1982
- Revaluation of answer books - Issue wlzethe1; under law, a
candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and
B revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations
framed by the State Board stating that there shall be no such right,
is ultra vires, unreasonable and void - Held: If statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authori~v
conducting the examination may permit it and if statute does not
c permit re-evaluation, the Court may permit only in rare or
exceptional cases where a material error has been committed -
Furthe1; the Court should not re-el'Ciluate or scrutinize the answer
sheets of a candidate since it has no expertise - Court to presume
the correctness of the key answers and in case of a doubt, the benefit
D should go to tlie examination authority rather than to the candidate
- Furthermore, there should be 1w sympathy or compassion in the
matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet.
Judicial discipline: Essential facet - Held: Respect for the
view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial
E discipline - Judge might have a difference of opinion with another
judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the
contrary view - ln the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure
sanctified by time must be adhered to.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
F HELD: 1.1 The Court is painful over the fact that an
examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers
advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even
after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding
public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and
0 reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation
which could go on for several years. The courts can interfere in
the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations
and to a very limited extent. The law on revaluation of answer
' sheet is that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
H
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 97
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority A
conducting the examination may permit it; if a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from .
prohibiting it) then the.Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny
only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential
B
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only
in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed; the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize
the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter
and academic matters are best left to academics; the Court should
presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that c
assumption; and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate. [Paras
16. 18, 30] [105-E-F; 106-C; 11-G-H; 112-A-B]
1.2 Sympathy or compassion docs not play any role in the
matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer D
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination
process docs not deserve to be derailed only because some
candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some
injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question
or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some E
might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical
precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way
out of an impasse-exclude the suspect or offending question.
[Para 31] [112-C-D]
1.3 It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions F
of this Court, there is interference by the Courts in the result of
examinations. This places the examination authorities in an
unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the
candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged
examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While G
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. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must
H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in
by the candidates who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals
are a classic example of the consequence of such interference
where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even
B
after a lapse of eight years. 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
c college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited
or not. This unsatisfactory situation docs not work to anybody's
advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion
being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this
is that public interest suffers. [Para 32] [112-E-H: 113-A]
D 1.4 In the first instance the Single Judge took it upon
himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers
to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction
and the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the
Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed
the view of the Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of
E this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a
one-man Expert Committee. Having come to the conclusion that
both the High Courts ought to have been far more circumspect ·
in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers,
the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer
F sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration.
Given this scenario, the options are to nullify the entire re-
evaluation process and depend on the result declared on
14.09.2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the
examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there
will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their
G jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for
employment. [Para 34] [113-C-E]
1.5 Having weighed the options, the middle path is perhaps
the best path to be taken under the circumstances of the case.
The middle path is to declare the third set of results since the
H
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 99
Board has undertaken a massive exercise under the directions A
of the High Court. [Para 35] [113-F]
1.6 In view of the discussion and taking into consideration
all the possibilities, the following directions are issued:
(1) the results prepared by the Board consequent upon the
decision dated 2.11.2015 of the High Court should be declared B
by the Board within the stipulated period;
(2) the candidates appointed and working as Trained
Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the
earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration
of results, should not be removed from service but should be c
allowed to continue;
(3) the candidates now selected for appointment as Trained
Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should
be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts.
However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers D
would not be entitled to any consequential benefits. [Para 37]
[114-B-E]
1.7 Deep anguish is expressed with the turn of events
whereby the Single Judge entertained a batch of writ petitions,
out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several E
similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other Single
Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is
an essential element of judicial discipline. A judge might have a
differenre of opinion with another judge, but that does not give
him or her any right to ignore the contrary view. In the event of a F
difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be
adhered to so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule of
law. [Para 38] [114-E-G]
Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati
University (2005) 13 SCC 744 - distinguishing.
G
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur [2010] 7 SCR 189 : (2010) 6 SCC
759 ; Kanpur University v. Smnir Gupta [1984] 1 SCR
73 : 1983 (4) SCC 309 ; Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1985] 1 SCR 29 : (1984) 4 SCC
27 ; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bilzar ,
Public Service Commission [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372 :
(2004) 6 SCC 714 ; Secy., W.B. Council of Higher
Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [2007] 10 SCR
464 : (2007) 8 SCC 242 ; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
B
Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of
Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda
(2004) 13 SCC 383 ; President, Board of Secondary
Education v. D. Suvankar [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 1143 :
(2007) 1 SCC 603 ; and Central Board of Secondary
c Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava [2011] 10 SCR
286 : (2014} 14 sec 523 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 7 SCR 189 referred to para 5
D (2005) 13 sec 744 distinguishing para 8
[1984] 1 SCR 73 referred to· para 19
[1985] 1 SCR 29 referred to para 20
E [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372 referred to para 26
[2007] 10 SCR 464 referred to para 27
(2004) 13 sec 383 referl'il&.to para 27
[2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 1143 referred to para27
F
[2011] 10 SCR 286 referred to para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 367 of
2017.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2015 of the High Court
. of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 629 of 2014
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 356-357, 358, 366, 355, 354 of2017.
H
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 101
Ms. Indira Jaising, V.M. Sinha, Sr. Advs., Purushottam Sharma A
Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Abhishek Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh,
Ms. Vani Vyas, Ms. Sushma Singh, Amit, L. Nidhiram Sharma, Mukesh
Kumar Singh, Vinay Kumar Sharma, Shantanu J., Rajiv Kumar, Sagar
Kumar, Ms. Arnita, Shantanu J., P. Agarwal, Abhishek Tripathi, Narendra
Kumar Goyal, Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ilam Pradi, Pranay Kapur, B
Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, Mahabir Singh, Brijender Chahar,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Dr. B. K. Jauhari, Ms. Pooja Sharma,
Deepak Anand, Aviral Saxena, Vinay Garg, M. R. Shamshad, R.J3ala,
Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms. Kavita Bharadwaj, Anurag Ojha, Satya · Iitra,
Sanjay Kr. Visen, T. N. Tripathi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Prashant C
Shukla, M~ .hreya Mishra, Prashant Singh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ad vs.
for the Respondents.
Th~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J, I. What a mess! This is perhaps the D
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, E
their travails, as those of the U .P. Secondary Education Services Selection
Board, will come to a satisfactory end.
2. On 15 1h 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 F
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 G
was declared by the Board on 18'h 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 l 61h and 261h July, 2010. Eventually, H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A the combined result (written examination and interview) was declared
on 141h 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 provis;on 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
c 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' 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
D 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
E 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
F would be option (I).
(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.
G (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.
1
c2010i 6 sec 759
H
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 103
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(f) In question no. 43, there may be two correct answers, i.e. A
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 B
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 of Selection Board could not have been completed by
mere holding a selection without caring whether examination is c
being conducted correctly and properly, whether all the questions
have been framed in a proper manner, whether the answer(s), if
it is multiple choice examination, have been given with due care
~"1 caution so as to leave no scope of error or mistake therein
etc. In fact if such a mistake is committed, it causes a multi-
edged injury to an otherwise studious, intelligent and well conversant D
student who understand the subject, well knows the relevant details
and correct answers but suffers due to sheer negligence of the
examining body. The obligation of examining body cannot be
allowed to whittle out in any manner for any reason whatsoever.
For the fault of examining body, a candidate cannot be made to E
suffer."
7. On this basis, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment and
order dated s•h February, 2012 directing re-examination of the answer
sheets of these 77 writ petitioners. It was further directed that in case
these writ petitioners are selected then those at the bottom of the select F
list would automatically have to be pushed out.
8. In must be recorded that the learned Single Judge did refer to
and cite several decisions of this Court on the subject or re-evaluation
but unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down. The learned Single
Judge relied on Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati G
University" but failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers under
consideration in that case were demonstrably wrong and this was not in
dispute and even the learned counsel appearing for the University did
not question this fact. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts.
'<zoos) J3 sec 744
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A 9. Be that as it may, the issue that remained in Manish Ujwal
was of the appropriate orders to be passed. While considering this, the
following cautionary measures were suggested:
" ... .it is necessary to note that the University and those who
prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant
8 caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason.
We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the
welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the
merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the
predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her
career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a
c result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the
second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in
educational matters which, in tum, casts a higher responsibility on
the University while preparing the key answers: and thirdly, in
cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University and
D not in favour of the students."
I 0. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge,
the Board preferred Special Appeal No. 442 of2012 before the Division
Bench of the High Court. Some c~ndidates also preferred Special Appeals
directed against the judgment and order dated 81h February, 2012. The
E Special Appeal filed by the Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of
the High Court on l 3'h March, 2012. In some other Special Appeal filed
by a candidate, it was stated by the Board on 11 'h April, 2012 that the
answer sheets of all the candidates would be re-evaluated in the light of
the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
F 11. Following up on this, the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge was implemented on 10'.h September, 2012 and the
re-evaluated results of the written examination of all candidates were
declared. As a result of the re-evaluation, it appears that some candidates,
who were declared successful in the combined result declared on 14'h
September, 20 I 0 were now declared unsuccessful. The appellants before
G us were not affected by the re-evaluation of the written examination
and continued in the select list.
12. Thereafter, a set of petitions was filed including some before
this Court and eventually it came to pass that those aggrieved by the
order passed by the Division Bench on I 3'h March, ?.O! 2 c~uld file review
H petitions.
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 105
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
13. On l21h May, 2014 the Board published the final select list of A
candidates who had qualified in the written examination as well as in the
interview. In this final select list, the appellants did not find a place and,
therefore, they challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated
81h February, 2012. According to the appellants the learned Single Judge
had incorrectly re-evaluated the seven disputed questions and had arrived
B
at incorrect answers to these questions.
14. The Division Bench heard all the review petitions as well as
the appeals and passed an order dated 28'h April, 2015 referring the
seven disputed questions/answers for consideration by a one-man Expert
Committee. On or about J 8'h May, 2015 the Expert Committee gave its
Report to which the appellants filed objections. Eventually, by the judgment c
and order dated 2nct November, 2015 the Division Bench directed a fresh
evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis of the Report of the Expert
Committee. This decision of the Division Bench is under challenge before
us.
15. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the third re- D
evaluation was completed by the Board. The result of the third re-
evaluation has been kept in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was initially
filed before us but later returned to learned counsel for the Board.
16. We are pained that an examination for recruitment of Trained
Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality E
even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding
public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and reviewed so
that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on
for several years. Be that as it may, we have still to tackle the issues
before us. F
17. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the
Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982
and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re-evaluation of
the answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to
have undertaken that exercise at alJ. Reference was made to the following G
passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on
the subject and held:
"In view of the above, it was not pennissible for the High Court to
examine the question papers and answer sheei:s it~elf; particularly,
when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the
H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or
evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing
for the examination and not for Respondent I only. It is a matter
of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets
relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry
and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether
B
such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
Then.~fore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course
was not permissible to the High Court."
18. A complete l1ands-off or no-interference approach was neither
suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other
c decision of this Court- the case law developed over the years admits of
interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional
situations and to a very limited extent.
19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta' this Court took the
view that" .... the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it
D is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an
inferential process of reasoning or by a process of ration.alisation. It
must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such
as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would
regard as correct." In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly
E demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any
inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore
rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in
ente1taining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To
prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be
taken by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing
F a system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including
those that might be caused by translatiou; and (iii) Prompt decision be
taken to exclude the suspect quc~tion and no marks be assigned to it.
20. Maharashira State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Blmpeshkumar Sheth 4 is perhaps
G the leading case on the subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104
of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards
Regulations, 1977 which reads:
'(1983) 4 sec 309
H '(1984) 4 sec 21
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 107
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
"I 04. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a A
subject.-(1) Any candidate who has appeared at the Higher
Secondary Certificate examination may apply to the Divisional
Secretary for verification of marks in any particular subject. The
verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers
have been examined and that there has been no mistake in the
B
totalling of marks for each question in that subject and
transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the
answer book and whether the supplements attached to the
answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revalua-
tion of the answer book or supplements shall be done.
(2) Such an application must be made by the candidate through
c
the head of the junior college which presented him for the
examination, within two weeks of the declaration of the
examination results and must be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10
for each subject.
(3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to revaluation of his D
answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other
documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most
confidential."
21. The question before this Court was: Whether, under law, a
candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and revaluation E
of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall
be no such right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void.
22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court, while dealing F
with a batch of39 writ petitions, divided them into two groups: (i) Cases
where a right of inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases
where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer sheets was
claimed. With regard to the first group, the High Court held the above
Regulation I 04(3) as unreasonable and void and directed the concerned G
Board to allow inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to the second
group of cases, it was held that the above Regulation 104( I) was void,
illegal and manifestly unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility
of re-evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who had applied
for it.
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A 23. In appeal against the decision of the High Court, it was held
by this Court that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in
such cases. It was held that: "The principles of natural justice cannot be
extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to
such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have
taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process
B
of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the
evaluation made uy the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection
of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper
and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners."
24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held that they
c were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the rule making power
conferred by statute. It was then said:
"The CQurt cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy·
evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making
body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the
D purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness
and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any
drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will
not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the
ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is
E even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate
the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the
sole repositories of the p0wer to decide what policy should be
pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no
scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision
impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity,
F in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-
making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions
of the parent enactment or in violatic.m of any of the limitations
imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are
shown to existln the present case ..... ".
G I.t was also noted by this Court that:
" .. the High Court has ignored the cardinal principfo_that it is not
within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether
the purpose of a statute can besei'ved better by adopting any ·
policy different from what has been laid down by the-Legislature
H
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 109
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
or its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable a bye-law A
(assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned
regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy
enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court
in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object
and purposes of the Act."
B
25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this Court then
proceeded on the basis of the plain and simple language of the Regulation
to hold that "The right of verification conferred by clause (1) is subject
to the limitation contained in the same clause that no revaluation of the
answer books or supplements shall be done and the further restriction
imposed by clause (3), prohibiting disclosure or inspection of the answer c
books."
This Court then concluded the discussion by observing:
"As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should
be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is D
wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in
preference to those formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day
working of educational institutions and the departments controlling
them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic
and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, E
isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved
in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences
which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a
pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that
the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or F
interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would
bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in
practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been
adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the
instant case."
G
26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chair111a11, Bihar Public
Service Commission 5 the question under consideration was whether
the High Court was right in directing re-evaluation of the answer book
of a candidate in the absence of any provision entitling the candidate to
'<2004) 6sec114
H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
.J
A ask for re-evaluation. This Court noted that there was no provision in
the concerned Rules for re-evaluation but only a provision for scrutiny
of the answer book "wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose
of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been
examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of
marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover
B
page of the answer-book." This Court reiterated the conclusion in
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that "in the absence of a specific
provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books
re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued."
27. The principle laid down by this Court in Paritosh
c Blmpeslzkumar Sheth was affirmed in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher
Secondai:v Education v. Aya11 Das6 and it was reiterated that there
must be finality attached to the result of a public examination and in the
absence of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot
be permitted and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a
D rarity. Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of Secondary
Education v. Pravas Ranjan Pa11da 1 and President, Board of
Secondary Education v. D. Suva11ka1.s.
28. The facts in Central Board of Secondary Education v.
Khushboo Shrivastava 9 are rather interesting. The respondent was a
E candidate in the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination,
2007 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short
"the CBSE"). Soon after the results of the examination were declared,
she applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The CBSE declined
her request since there was no provision for this. She then filed a writ
F petition in the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge cailed for
her answer sheets and on a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers
with the model or key answers concluded that she deserved an additional
two marks. The view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the
Division Bench of the High Court.
29. In appeal, this Court set aside the decision of the High Court
G
and reiterating the view already expressed by this Court from time to
time and allowing the appeal of the CBSE it was held:
'(2007) s sec 242
'(2004) 13 sec 383
•c2007) 1 sec 603
H •c2014) 14 sec s23
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 111
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
"We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar A
Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission has clearly held
relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that
in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answer
books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has
B
any right to claim or a~k for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision
in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service
Commission was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Rw1jan Panda
in which the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer
books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was c
held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the
Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the
examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of
answer books in the rules.
In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-Medical/ D
Pre-Dental Entrance Exami11ation, 2007 conducted by the CBSE
did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer
sheets. Hence, the appellants could not have allowed such re-
examination or re-evaluation on the representation of Respondent
I and accordingly rejected the representation of Respondent 1
for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets ..... . E
In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor
the Division Bench ofthe High Court could have substituted his/
its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional
marks to Respondent I for the two answers in exercise of powers
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these F
are purely academic matters ...... "
30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a
statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-
evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter G
ofright, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii)
If a statute. Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit
re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting
it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases
that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all
re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and
proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit
B
should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does
not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation
of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority,
the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process
c does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused
to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates
suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped
since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown
D one way out of an impasse -exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this
Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference
by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination
authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and
E not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged
examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. 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. The
enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the
F Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the
candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and
the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example
of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the
G result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. 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. This
H
RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 113
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such A
a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The
overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.
33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance
the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the
correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely B
beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions,
the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division
Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the
learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but
sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert
Committee.
c
34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court (the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) ought to have been far more
circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key
answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the
answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. D
Given this scenario, the options before us are to nullify the entire re-
evaluation process and depend on the result declared on 141h September,
2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not
an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates
who are likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled E
to consideration for employment.
35. Having weighed the options before us, we are of opinion that
the middle path is perhaps the best path to be taken under the
circumstances of the case. The middle path is to declare the third set of
results since the Board has undertaken a massive exercise under the F
directions of the High Court and yet protect those candidates may now
be declared unsuccessful but are working as Trained Graduate Teachers
a result of the first or the second declaration of results. It is also possible
that consequent upon the third declaration of results some new candidates
might get selected and should that happen, they will need to be
accommodated since they were erroneously not selected. on earlier G
occasions.
36. Learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that
in case her clients are not selected after the third declaration of results,
they will be seriously prejudiced having worked as Trained Graduate
H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R.
A Teachers for several years. However, with the middle path that we
have chosen their services will be protected and, therefore, there is no
cause for any grievance by any of the appellants. Similarly, those who
have not been selected but unfortunately left out they will be
accommodated.
B 37. As a result of our discussion and taking into consideration all
the possibilities that might arise, we issue the following directions:
(1) The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the
decision dated 2nd November, 2015 of the High Court should
be declared by the Board within two weeks from today.
c (2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate
Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier
occasions; if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of
results, should not be removed from service but should be
allowed to continue.
D (3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained
Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results)
should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary
posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate
Teachers will not be entitled to any consequential benefits.
E 38. Before concluding, we must express our deep anguish with
the turn of events whereby the learned Single Judge entertained a batch
of writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though
several similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other learned
Single Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an
essential element of judicial discipline. A judge might have a difference
F
of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right
to ignore the contrary view. In the event of a difference of opinion, the
procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to so that there is
demonstrated respect for the rule of law.
39. With the above directions, the appeals and miscellaneous
G
applications are disposed of.
Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public examination"Sign in to search