Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a batch of 39 writ petitions, divided them into two groups: (i) Cases where a right of inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer sheets was claimed. With regard to the first group, the High Court held the above Regulation 104(3) as unreasonable and void and directed the concerned Board to allow inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to the second group of cases, it was held that the above Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of re- evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who had applied for it.

10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-

evaluation of answer sheets. Hence, the appellants could not have allowed such re- examination or re-evaluation on the representation of Respondent 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets......

15. I have heard the learned senior counsels and other learned counsels appearing for the writ petitioners as also the learned Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent Commission as also have gone through the materials on record. The issues, which are required to be adjudicated in the present writ petitions, are:-

(i) Whether re-evaluation of answer sheets can be directed by this Court merely on the bald assertions of the writ petitioners that they had done very well in the Mains examination, however, they surprisingly been not declared successful, which is on account of irregularity committed in the course of awarding marks to the writ petitioners as also on account of defective evaluation process,

27. In view of the well settled laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, more particularly the law laid down in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), Ayan Das and others (supra), Ranvijay Singh and others (supra) and the latest judgment i.e. one rendered in the case of Tanya Mallick (supra), this Court is of the opinion that since there is no provision entitling a candidate to have an answer sheet re-evaluated, under the Rules of the respondent Commission, this Court cannot direct for re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the writ petitioners, especially since the writ petitioners in the present case have failed to demonstrate very clearly, without any ―inferential process of reason or process of rational‖ that a material error has been committed and more particularly since the writ petitioners have failed to substantiate the charges of irregularities and bungling in evaluation of the answer script with cogent materials apart from bald feeble statements made in the writ petition. It must be stated here that the entire examination Patna High Court CWJC No.5552 of 2018 dt.09-05-2018 process cannot be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them and there must be finality attached to the result of the public examination. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has very aptly held that ―all candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible‖. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet and if an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of the courts directing for re-examination of the answer script especially in absence of any rule to the said effect.