Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The issue as to whether challenge to the examination for any selection should be entertained has been considered by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. The overwhelming opinion of the Apex Court is that re-evaluation of the answer sheet for any written examination can only be permitted if any rule so permit.

17. In the matter of Manish Ujwal and Others vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others [(2005) 13 SCC 744], a common entrance test based upon multiple choice objective answers was held. The outcome of the result was challenged on the allegations of six questions given in the answer keys being erroneous and incorrect. The examination comprises of 100 questions of three marks each and for each wrong answer negative marking system was adopted, i.e., one mark would be deducted for each wrong answer.

19. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 759], the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) conducted a written examination to fill up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). One of the unsuccessful candidate who was not invited for viva-voce filed a petition seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheet.

20. The High Court ordered re-evaluation of the answer sheet and based upon the marks awarded in re-evaluation issued directions for appointment. The HPPSC approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court with the consent of learned counsel for the parties sent the answer sheet to other eminent Professor who awarded lesser marks than the earlier examiner in re-evaluation. While hearing the case finally, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court formulated three questions, which are relevant for purposes of the present OA, reads as under:-

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question."