Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court after considering the principles laid down as aforesaid, drew a distinction as regards the cases involving the alleged right of students or candidates to claim re-examination or re-evaluation of answer sheets and the power of the High Court to order re-evaluation of the answer sheets, vis-a-vis, the cases where a competent academic authority had itself exercised the power to order re-evaluation of the answer books based on the factual scenario before it. In paragraph 36 of the aforesaid judgment it has been observed as under:

"the Supreme Court (in Board of Secondary Education case) was of the opinion that the question as to whether, in the absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer books was examined by the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, (supra). It was noticed by the Supreme Court that in the said decision it was held that in the absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer books no direction should be issued because a direction for re-evaluation of the answer books would through many problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. Therefore, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the order of the High Court directing re-evaluation of the answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was clearly unsustainable in law and set aside the same. The above decision deals with the rights of the student or candidate to claim re-examination/re-evaluation of his answer sheet and the power of the High Court to order re-evaluation of answer sheets. It does not deal with the power of the Board to order re-evaluation of answer books if the factual scenario so demands."

In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the view that in the context of the issue of re-evaluation, there are four types of cases, one, where there is no specific provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets nor are there provisions analogous to those considered in Sahiti's case under which re-evaluation could be ordered in a given fatual scenario as referred therein, second category comprises of those cases where not only there is no provision for re-evaluation but in fact, there is a specific bar or prohibition in the relevant Act, Statutes, Rules etc. with regard to re-evaluation. The third type of cases are those, where, though there is no specific provision for re-evaluation, but, considering the powers vested in the academic authorities, as in Sahiti's case (supra) re-evaluation is ordered by them in a given factual scenario, as, it is necessary to do so. Such decision can be subjected to judicial scrutiny by the Courts on the anvil of the principles laid down in Sahiti's case. Fourth category comprises of cases where provision has been made for re-evaluation of answer sheets.

Having said so, this is not a case where the Vice-Chancellor has ordered re-evaluation of answer sheets, therefore, the factual scenario herein, is somewhat different from the one existing in Sahiti's case (supra). Thus, though, this case falls in the third category referred above, but only partially.

The petitioners have not been able to place before this Court any specific provision in the Act of 1973, the Statutes, Regulations and Ordinances etc. made thereunder providing for re-evaluation of answer sheets therefore they do not have an enforceable right. As no decision has been taken by the Vice-Chancellor for re-evaluation, none is available for scrutiny by this Court. In view of the above discussion, Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of 1973 do not put any mandatory obligation upon the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation so as to give a corresponding right to the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of his failure to discharge such obligations. No exceptional reasons or circumstances exist in this case for issuance of a writ, as prayed for, therefore, the writ of mandamus being sought in the writ petition cannot be granted.