Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Sri Vivek Varma, learned Counsel for the University submits that the Examination Committee of the University has taken a resolution that the answer-scripts of the candidates are weeded out after 90 days. Therefore, it is not possible to re-evaluate the answer script of the petitoner. He has also relied on a judgment of this Court in Jagdish Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others passed in Writ-C No. 29207 of 2013. Against the said order, the Special Appeal has been rejected.

13. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

14. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere in the matter of result of the candidates where there is no provision of re-evaluation in the Statutes or the Rules but the Supreme Court in Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Science and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599, has held that even in the case where there is no rule of re-evaluation, the High Court can issue a direction for re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The Supreme Court has further held that if there is no provision for re-evaluation, there is more responsibility on the examiners to evaluate the answer scripts with responsibility and with due care. Paragraph Nos. 32 & 37 of the said judgment read as under;

"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.

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."

15. In the present case the petitioner has passed her High School and Intermediate Examinations with first division marks and she has also passed her B.A. Part-I and II with the same University with first division marks. In the Ist and IInd Papers of Sanskrit also the petitioner has secured more than 60% marks but only in the third paper she has got 34 marks.