Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

61. In this regard Mr. Dhar has relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.5, (paragraph 18). The said paragraph reads as follows:

―18. In respect of the respondent Board's propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See J&K (2013) 14 SCC 494 State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik [(2000) 3 SCC 59] and Sahiti v. Dr N.T.R. University of Health Sciences [(2009) 1 SCC 599]. It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers which is not the case herein." (emphasis supplied)

83. It is submitted that none of the orders dated 23rd July, 2018 passed by the learned Single Bench, order dated 4th February, 2020, order dated 12th September, 2023 and the order dated 13th June, 2024 passed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench contain any specific direction that the time is being extended to comply with the order of the Single Bench subject to the condition that no further written test of the candidates found eligible subsequently.

84. Our attention is drawn to paragraphs 9, 11,12,14 and 17 of the order dated 13th June, 2024 to emphasize that those paragraphs are not orders but observations which could not be treated as precedent. The said paragraphs do not lay down any law. There is no whisper even in those paragraphs of the said judgment that written test for candidates found successful upon re-evaluation of answer scripts of preliminary screening test, will not be held.