Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. To be fair to the senior counsel for the petitioner, he did not urge so. He on the contrary contended that it is for this reason only that he is seeking cancellation of the examination.

20. I may however add that the Supreme Court in Sahiti Vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (2009) 1 SCC 599 rejected the contention that in the absence of specific provision, re-evaluation cannot be ordered. It was held that re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. It was further held that the Vice Chancellor is the conscience keeper of the University and is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non academic affairs. A distinction was also drawn between the right of the student or candidate to claim re-examination / re-evaluation and the power of the Board / University to order re-evaluation of answer books if factual scenario so demands. It was further held that when it is found that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner is not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, re-evaluation may be found necessary. Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Surinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2013) SCC Online P&H 8843 where also suo motu re-evaluation was upheld.