Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.60 seconds)Vikash Kumar Gupta vs State Of Raj And Ors on 27 July, 2021
8.3 In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta
(supra), after considering catena of decisions on
scope of judicial review with regard to reevaluation
of the answer sheets, it is observed and held that
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 20:32:05 :::CIS
18
the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the
answer sheets of a candidate as it has no
.
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
the appellant in the General Science paper. In
the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of
answer-books in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has got any right
whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of
his marks. This question was examined in
considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC
27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the
relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny
of marks) on an application made to that effect
by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ
petitions praying that they may be allowed to
inspect the answer-books and the Board be
directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the
answer-books as the petitioners may demand
after inspection. The High Court held that the
rule providing for verification of marks gave an
implied power to the examinees to demand a
disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-
evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment
of the High Court was set aside and it was held
that in absence of a specific provision conferring
a right upon an examinee to have his answer-
books re-evaluated, no such direction can be
issued. There is no dispute that under the
relevant rule of the Commission there is no
provision entitling a candidate to have his
answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation,
the prayer made by the appellant in the writ
petition was wholly untenable and the learned
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 20:32:05 :::CIS
16
Single Judge had clearly erred in having the
answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
H.P.Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr on 25 May, 2010
14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if
rules permit, this Court has deprecated the
practice of reevaluation and scrutiny of the
questions by the courts which lack expertise in
academic matters. It is not permissible for the
High Court to examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when the
Commission has assessed the inter se merit of
the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public
Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6
SCC 759.
Richal vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 3 May, 2018
have examined the correctness of the questions
and the answer key to come to a conclusion
different from that of the Expert Committee in its
judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was
placed by the Appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission (2018) 8 SCC 81. In
the said judgment, this Court interfered with the
selection process only after obtaining the
opinion of an expert committee but did not enter
into the correctness of the questions and
answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment
is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in
this case.
Dr Ntr University Of Health Sciences vs Dr. Yerra Trinadh on 4 November, 2022
University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh and
others, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the
practice being followed by some of the High Courts where in
absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules regarding
re-evaluation, the Courts were still calling for the answer
scripts/answer sheets and thereafter ordering re-evaluation of
the answer scripts while exercising powers under Article 226
of the Constitution. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant
observations, as contained in paras-5, 8 and 9 of the
judgment, which read as under:-
Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs Chairman, Bihar Public Service ... on 6 August, 2004
8.1 In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava
(supra), it is observed and held by this Court that
in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the
relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or
demand reevaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is
observed and held as under:
Ran Vijay Singh vs State Of U.P. . on 11 December, 2017
8.2 In the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of
U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, in paragraph 32, it is
observed and held as under:
Basavaiah vs H.L. Ramesh & Ors on 29 July, 2010
Courts have to show deference and
consideration to the recommendation of the
Expert Committee who have the expertise to
evaluate and make recommendations (See-
Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372.
Rustam Garg & Ors vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service ... on 29 March, 2016
15. A Division Bench of this Court in Rustam Garg
and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission, ILR 2016 Vol. (2), 591, while dealing
with an identical proposition has held as under: