In C.A. No.1141 of 2023-SC- When there is no provision for re-evaluation in Statute of University, issuance of any writ of mandamus of such nature would practically amount to issuing directions for doing something which is not provided for by law: SC
Justices Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjay Kumar [14-02-2023]

 

Read Judgment: DR. B R AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, February 24, 2023: The Supreme Court has opined that the statute governing the examination in question does not provide for revaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. The award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator.

The appellant–Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra,  preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-checking of his answer sheet of Paper-II of the subject Physiology through different examiners and to accept the amended result, if marks were increased in re-checking. 

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed the present appeal by observing that on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, the Court refrained itself from interfering in the substantive part of the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasons that a direct prohibition in the Statute in question was not shown. 

Factual background of the case was such that the writ petitioner of this case was a student of M.B.B.S. Course at Agra, appeared in M.B.B.S. Examination held in the month of December, 2018. in the result of the said examination, the writ petitioner was declared as failed even after securing 344 marks out of 600 for the reason that in Paper-II of Physiology, he got only 6 marks out of 50.

Subsequently, when no action was taken by the appellant-University for scrutiny or re- checking, the writ petitioner approached the High Court.  The High Court, in its order put the appellant- University to notice as to why serious action be not taken against it. Aggrieved by the directions and requirements made in the High Court, the appellant-University approached this Court.  This Court stayed the operation of the impugned order. However, before passing of the stay order few other writ petitions were filed in the High Court while relying upon the impugned order. 

Considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that it does  not feel inclined to upset the substantive relief granted to the writ petitioner in paragraph 29 of the impugned order in the peculiar circumstances of the case however, there was no  iota of doubt that all other directions and mandate issued by the High Court in the order impugned cannot be approved.

Referring to the judgment in Mukesh Thakur and Another, the Bench observed, “It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing the examination in question does not provide for revaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. Therefore, in the ordinary circumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the process as adopted by the High Court could not have been given our imprimatur”, the Court noted. 

However, on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, the Court refrained itself from interfering in the substantive part of the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasons that a direct prohibition in the Statute in question was not shown; the original examiner seems to have totally omitted to award the marks in relation to answer Nos. 2, 5(a) and 5(b); the process of evaluation by other examiners was adopted and taken forward by the High Court by providing for awarding of average of the marks of the three examiners; and any interference at this length of time might entail serious adverse consequences to the writ petitioner, the Court observed. 

However, the Court further made it clear that non-interference in the present case was not to be construed as any endorsement by this Court to the process adopted by the High Court. Hence, in view of such observations, the appeal was accordingly allowed.