Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to the material brought on record, came to hold that there was no irregularity in the appointment of the examiners and that the prayer for re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of rules or regulations was impermissible and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

6. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mrs.Zubeda Begum, learned counsel for the respondent Board.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that when the question papers related to various subjects like psychology, philosophy, educational technology, school organization and management and Hindi language, the experts who did not belong to the said streams, could not have been appointed. It is urged by him that the issue that was propounded before the learned Single Judge was not the process of appointment of the evaluators or examiners but their capability and ability to examine the answer scripts which has not been answered. It is canvassed by him that the respondent-Board has made a maladroit endeavour to pass on the responsibility to the Directorate of Education without itself looking into the aspect that competent examiners are required to examine the answer papers. The learned counsel further submitted that when the appellant had secured high marks in the objective test and has been awarded extremely less marks in the subjective test, it creates a lurking suspicion in the method of evaluation and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have addressed to the said facet taking a different approach and should not have expressed the view that in the absence of a rule or regulation, re-evaluation is totally impermissible although in special circumstances, re-evaluation is allowable. The learned counsel further submitted that when a defective method for selection is adopted, the same becomes arbitrary and this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, should interfere with the same.

8. Mrs.Zubeda Begum, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is impregnable inasmuch as the appellant cannot claim to get his answer script re-evaluated in the absence of a rule or regulation in that regard and further in absence of any specific and precise particulars to warrant such an action. It is her further submission that the appellant had taken a chance to get himself selected and after his non-selection, he cannot pave the path of tergiversation and challenge the selection process as the same is in the realm of impermissibility. It is contended by her that if the questions are seemly scrutinized, it would be clear that the same can be evaluated by the category of persons who are being chosen by the Directorate of Education and the submission that it required experts is totally bereft of any substratum. It is also canvassed that the method of selection is not arbitrary for the simple reason that there is distinction between an objective test and a subjective test and the said aspect cannot be entered into by applying the parameters of judicial review.

15. We may also refer with profit to a three-Judge Bench decision in Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599. It is worth noting that in the said case, the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where the Vice Chancellor of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences had directed re-evaluation of the answer scripts and in that context, their Lordships have opined thus:

"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 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."