Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. In High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee: (2019) 16 SCC 663, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined t\and explained the ratio of law laid down in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) in the following words: -

"20. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand re-valuation as of right could there arise circumstances which leave the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for re-valuation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for re-valuation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even the slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks.

21. Should the second circumstance be demonstrated to be present before the writ court, can the writ court become helpless despite the vast reservoir of power which it possesses? It is one thing to say that the absence of provision for re-valuation will not enable the candidate to claim the right of evaluation as a matter of right and another to say that in no circumstances whatsoever where there is no provision for re-valuation will the writ court exercise its undoubted constitutional powers? We reiterate that the situation can only be rare and exceptional.

22. We would understand therefore the conclusion in para 30.2 which we have extracted from the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 357] only in the aforesaid light. We have already noticed that in H.P. Public Service Commissionv. Mukesh Thakur [(2010) 6 SCC 759], a two-Judge Bench in para 26 after survey of the entire case law has also understood the law to be that in the absence of any provision the Court should not generally direct re-valuation."

40. The learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon the decision in the case of Mahesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commision and Another: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2290, which is being reproduced below: -