Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. He submitted that, the expert opinion obtained by the petitioner clearly showed that, the evaluation of the petitioners answers in respect of the said two questions were wrong on the part of the examination authority and when such mistake is glaring on the face of the answer script, even if, there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer script, this Court in exercise of its high prerogative writ jurisdiction with plenary power shall direct for re- evaluation of the answers of the petitioner to the said two questions either by directing the council by appointing an expert or this Court on its own can appoint an expert and get it re-evaluated. In the event, after such evaluation it would be found that the answers given by the petitioner to the said two questions were wrongly evaluated by the council, then the council should be directed to a ward full marks to the petitioner and in that event the marks obtained by the petitioner would be enhanced. Learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner had already secured the rank 7th in the West Bengal and in the event, his marks would be enhanced then consequently his board ranking would also be enhanced.

29. In the matter of: Ran Vijay Singh (supra) the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were as under:

27.The principle laid down by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] was affirmed in W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, (2007) 8 SCC 242 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 871 : 5 SCEC 792] 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 rarity. Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 :

30. In the matter of: Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observed as under:

"7. The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, "whether in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation after calling for the record of the answer scripts?

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts, confirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned common judgment and order, is unsustainable. However, as observed hereinabove, as the results of the original writ petitioners after re-evaluation or appearing in the supplementary examination have been declared, while quashing and setting aside the impugned common judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court, the same shall not be affected and/or disturbed. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts in absence of any such provision in the relevant rules are hereby quashed and set aside. However, as observed hereinabove, the same shall not affect the declaration of the results of the original writ petitioners on re-evaluation or appearing in the supplementary examination".

31. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed above, this Court is of the firm view that, in absence of a specific provision for re-evaluation of his answer scripts, save and except Regulation 21 of the 2006 Regulation which had already been exercised by the petitioner, the petitioner is not eligible to have his answer scripts re-evaluated as the statute does not permit the same. The case of the petitioner is neither exceptional nor a rare one.