Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

vi) The Writ Court also erred in holding that in the absence of any specific power of re-evaluation available in the statute, the appellant could not have suo motto corrected the Model (Key) Answers and re- evaluated the result of the preliminary examination. It is submitted that the power of examining body to re-evaluate the answer scripts, if the situation so warrants, is inherent in its duty to conduct fair and transparent examination and such power need not be conferred by the statute.

The Controller of Examinations shall accordingly finalize the key(s) of relevant question(s) and notify the same for evaluation as well as the information of the examinees.

12. As is evident from a bare perusal of Rule 12-B, the Controller of Examination was under an obligation to release the keys of question paper immediately after the conclusion of the examination by uploading the same on the website of the Commission. The candidates were permitted to represent the Controller of Examination, if they feel that the official key to any question(s) is/are wrong within three days from the date of notification of the keys. The Controller of Examination after scrutiny of all such representations was obliged to refer them to the committee of two experts in the relevant subject. The opinion of the expert committee was to be treated as final and it was on the basis of this final opinion, the key to the question was to be finalized and notified for evaluation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 that had the provision, i.e., 12-B been retained in the statute book, the controversy that erupted in the instant examination would not have happened. He, however, submits that with the deletion of aforesaid provision, the power of the Commission to re-evaluate the answer scripts whether of preliminary or of final examination has been specifically taken away. Rules 31 to 33 of the Rules of 2005 also lead us to agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that there is no specific provision made in the Rules authorizing the Commission to revisit the answer keys and re-evaluate the result of the preliminary examination or even the main examination. It is in the backdrop of this Rule position, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 urges that the process undertaken by the appellant was without any authority of law. The Mode (Key) Answers prepared by the experts appointed by none other than the appellant and moderated by 3 rd expert should not have been tempered with.

"19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

23. From the analysis of aforementioned judgments, following conclusion can be drawn:-

i) An examinee can ask for re-evaluation of his/her answer scripts and access to the model answer keys, if the Statute, Rules or Regulations governing the examination provide for it.

ii) Even in the absence of any specific provision in the Statute, Rules or Regulations governing the examination, the power to correct the model answer keys and re-evaluate the answer scripts of the candidates inheres in the examination body, unless there is specific prohibition in such Statute, Rules or Regulations.