Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth 1. It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts.

10. The courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court that model answer is different from Patna High Court CWJC No.5552 of 2018 dt.09-05-2018 what has been adopted by the Board. Then only can the court ask for the production of answer scripts to allow inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta2 it was held as follows: (SCC p. 316, paras 16-17) ―16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.

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.