Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Sahiti's case the Vice-Chancellor had taken a decision for re-evaluation of the answer books and the issue before the Supreme Court was, as to whether the exercise of the power by the Vice-Chancellor, ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the factual scenario present before it was valid or not. While dealing with the aforesaid issue their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of Sahiti's case, their Lordships observed as under:

"37. Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statutes at the instance of the candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, re-evaluation may be found necessary.
38. There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters.
39. Under the circumstances, the plea advanced on behalf of the respondents that the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences had no authority to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts, cannot be upheld. Therefore, this Court does not agree with the findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power or jurisdiction to order the reverification of answer scripts. However, the facts indicate that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised power to order reverification of answer scripts under pressure and coercion from the students and their parents and not independently on merits.
Their Lordships after considering the provisions of section 12(2) and (3) of the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986 and the Statutes made thereunder, opined that in view of the provisions contained therein, the Vice-Chancellor, being the principal executive and academic officer, carried with him certain express general powers, those implied as well as emergency and residuary powers and repelled the plea that, as there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts, he could not have done so. Relevant paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
31.As per the Statutes of the University, the Vice-Chancellor is a whole-time officer of the University and by virtue of his office, is a Member and Chairman of the Executive Council and of the Academic Council. He has power to convene meetings of the Executive Council and the Academic Council.
32.The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the judgment impugned should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority."