Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. The principle laid down by this Court in Patna High Court CWJC No.5552 of 2018 dt.09-05-2018 Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth was affirmed in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das6 and it was reiterated that there must be finality attached to the result of a public examination and in the absence of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda7 and President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar8.

18. Secondly, it is a well settled law that in case the statutory rule, regulation/ law does not permit re-evaluation, the Patna High Court CWJC No.5552 of 2018 dt.09-05-2018 Courts cannot direct for re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The learned Advocate General has rightly relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Ranvijay Singh & Ors. (Supra).

19. At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention here that the learned senior counsels for the writ petitioners have sought to rely on the very same judgment i.e. Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) to contend that in order to avoid vagaries of wide difference in standard in awarding marks, model answers should be prepared, which has not been done in the present case. In this connection it must be stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) had deprecated the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for re-evaluation of the answer book in absence of any provision regarding the same in the Rules of the BPSC and the issue under consideration was not as to whether the model answers are mandatorily required to be prepared.

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.

28. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, this Court finds that in absence of any rule permitting re-evaluation of answer scripts as also in absence of any cogent material having been brought on record by the writ petitioners to show illegalities in evaluation of the answer scripts, the prayer made by the writ petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions are devoid of any merit and consequently, all the aforesaid writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.