Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers.In any event, this is a difficulty felt by all the candidates and relied upon by the petitioner, does not help him at all.

P a g e | 29

30. It is reiterated that there must be a 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 rarity. Here, this is not a fit case to apply the exception.

33. As stated supra, normally, the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be.

34. No material has been produced by the petitioner to show that the Manipur Civil Service Combined Competitive Examination Rules provides for provision for re-evaluation of answer scripts.

Thus, in the absence of any provision in the rules for re-evaluation of answer scripts, candidates have no right to claim or demand for re-

evaluation, which in the present case the petitioner has made.

Therefore, the exercise of re-evaluation cannot be done. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no interference is required to P a g e | 31 be caused in the challenge made by the petitioner. That apart, no case is made out to succeed in the writ petition by the petitioner.