Supreme Court Disapproves High Courts' Practice Of Calling For Answer Scripts For Ordering Revaluation

The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of High Courts of calling for the answer scripts/sheets to order revaluation.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh reiterated that re-evaluation cannot be ordered if the regulations does not provide for the same. Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet, the bench said.

The court set aside an order passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court directing the re-evaluation of the answer scripts of certain students of post-graduation in diploma course in the NTR University of Health Sciences.

Before the Apex Court bench, the University contended that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the University has evaluated the answer scripts digitally for every examination and there is no manual evaluation after the resolution by the Executive Council for digital evaluation.

Agreeing with the said contention, the court observed:

"We are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for reevaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved."

While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

"In any case, in absence of any regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the University Rules, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet"

Case details

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs Dr. Yerra Trinadh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 909 | CA 8037 OF 2022 | 4 November 2022 | Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh

For Appellant(s) Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Ms. Vismai Rao, Adv. Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. M. Y. Ramesh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, AOR Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. D. Shiva Shankar, Adv. Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Adv. Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Adv. Mr. Goli Rama Krishna, Adv. Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. K. S. Gnana Sambhedan, Adv. Mr. C. Raghavendran, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Srinivas Rao P., Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv Mr T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv Mr. K.V.Girish Chowdary, Adv Ms. Niti Richhariya, Adv

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved - In absence of any regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts - Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation. (Para 9-10)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment