Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

However, in a case of this nature, namely, where there are errors in the answer key which affect the academic careers of the student community as a whole, the above referred provision would not be attracted. In the present case, the Vice- Chancellor has exercised his powers under section 11(4)(a) of the Act which duly empowers him to take such action as he deems necessary in case of any emergency. In the light of the fact that the schedule fixed by the Supreme Court for admission to Post Graduate Medical courses was required to be adhered to, there was a situation of an emergency, inasmuch as, on the one hand, it was brought to the notice of the Vice- Chancellor that there were several errors in the answer key and consequently, though the students had given the correct answers, the same had been marked incorrect because of such errors in the answer key. Hence, prompt action was required to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor to correct the error committed by the University, failing which immense prejudice would have been caused to the student community as a whole. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahiti v. Dr. NTR University for Health Sciences (supra), the Vice-Chancellor has emergency powers to deal with any untoward situation. If the Vice-Chancellor believes that a situation calls for immediate action, he can take such action as he thinks necessary though in the normal course, he is not competent to take that action. However, he must report to the authority or body concerned, which would, in the ordinary course, have dealt with the matter. The court turned down the plea that in absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of answer scripts, no such evaluation can be made. The court held that 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, malafide 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.

"17. Mr. Rao next argued that even if the result of the first selection process was vitiated by the use of erroneous "model answer key" the Court had the option of either dir- ecting re-evaluation of the answer scripts on the basis of a correct key or a fresh examination. Out of the two options the former was, according to Mr. Rao, better and ought to have served the purpose by not only saving considerable time but money and effort also. He urged that the Court could have removed the traces of any injustice or distor- tions in the selection process by directing re-evaluation of the answer scripts which would not only present the true picture of the merit of the candidates concerned but pre- vent any further litigation or prejudice to candidates on ac- count of long lapse of time."

"19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circum- stances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examin- ation to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from be- ing quicker. The process would also not give any unfair ad- vantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case."

29. As regards the contention that instead of considering the marks of the P.G. Medical Entrance Examination, the University could have taken into consideration the marks obtained at the All India Entrance Examination, the same also does not merit acceptance for the reason that the rules of University specifically provide that it would be the marks that are obtained at the P.G. Medical Entrance Examination that would be taken into consideration. Therefore, taking into consideration the marks obtained at the All India Entrance Examination would be contrary to the admission rules of the University. Moreover, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (supra), to arrive at a decision on "reasonableness", the court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the administrator must have been within the four corners of law, and not one which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at and must be a bonafide one. The decision could be one of many choices open to the authority but it was for that authority to decide upon their choice and not for the court to substitute its view. Therefore, it was for the University to decide as to which course of action was required to be adopted in the light of the errors in the answer key and it is not for this court to substitute its view and decide upon the choice made by the University. Besides, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra) has observed that given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof, which is exactly what has been done in the present case. The action taken by the respondent University, therefore, stands fortified by the above decisions.