Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The Petitioners contended that their answer scripts have to be re-evaluated on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the guidelines in Kishore Kumar (supra) were not followed and secondly, on the ground that the evaluation was improper on account of huge variance between the marks allotted by the examiners.

11. Before deciding the issue at hand, it is apt to discuss the scope of powers exercised by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India in respect of re-evaluation of answer scripts.

evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re- evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved.

17. Even otherwise, in the present case, the University has adopted the digital evaluation which has been subsequently modified/improved and the deficiencies have been removed, which has now been approved by the High Court in the recent decision in Writ Petition No. 15865/2022. The digital evaluation process is reported to be scrupulously followed by the University. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the University on use of digital evaluation, it appears that all precautions are being taken to have the accurate evaluation digitally. There are specific instructions and trainings to the examiners while conducting digital evaluation. It is reported that the faculty has utilised the updated software by using the tools and annotations incorporated in the software adopted by the University. In any case, in absence of any regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the University Rules, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh(supra) that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet.

19. According to this Court, there is no conflict between the decisions in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Yerra Trinadh (supra). The decision in Yerra Trinadh (supra) deprecated the practice of High Courts in ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts as a matter of routine.

The said decision cannot be interpreted to mean that High Courts have no power to order re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of rules permitting the same. A harmonious construction of the findings of both the decisions clearly indicates that in rare and exceptional cases the High Court can order re-evaluation of answer scripts.

evaluation of answer scripts. Further, sympathy and concession is not a ground to seek re-evaluation of answer scripts.

27. Recently, the Delhi High Court in Mayank Garg v. Delhi High Court12, dealt with a similar factual situation. The Petitioner there sought re-evaluation of his answer scripts on the ground that he failed to qualify the exam by one mark. The Court refused to accept the said contention and held that only in rare cases re-evaluation is permitted.

The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: