Assessment Of Descriptive Answers Is Subjective; Courts Should Not Enter That Arena : Supreme Court Disapproves Of HC Ordering Re-Evaluation

A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal moved by the Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra challenging the High Court’s order from 2019 which increased the marks of the respondent student.

The respondent student had moved the High Court seeking a 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 Court eventually ordered to increase his marks after noting that three separate examiners had granted him broadly similar marks; much higher than the original marks.

This apart, the High Court provided that if any student who had appeared in the examination of the University in the preceding three years were to apply for re-assessment/re-evaluation, it shouldn’t be declined only on the ground that no such procedure was prescribed in the Statute of the University.

The High Court also expressed its hope that that the University would take appropriate steps so that such “irresponsible, scrupulous, unmindful and negligent Examiners/Evaluators” are not deployed in future to evaluate answer sheets. Aggrieved, the University appealed before the Top Court.

The counsel for the University argued that the procedure as adopted by the High Court and the directions issued would have uncontrollable ramifications, and do not stand in conformity with the requirements of law.

The counsel for the respondent supported the High Court’s order while adding that he was required to approach the Court when left with no other option; and the present one had clearly been a case of the examiner failing in his duty to properly evaluate the answer sheet of the writ petitioner.

After going through the facts and rival submissions, the Supreme Court expressed that it was not inclined to upset the substantive relief granted to the respondent in the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, it did not feel the same way regarding the High Court’s other observations/directions.

On the question of awarding marks for re-evaluation, the Court noted that the Statute governing the examination in question did not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. Further, 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 said while highlighting the specific facts of the case.

“However, on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, we are refraining 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 has not been 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 has been 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..”

But the Supreme Court’s non-interference in the present case shouldn’t be construed as an “endorsement” to the process adopted by the High Court, it clarified.

However, the Bench further said that the observations as to the status of teachers in the society and other co-related observations were not required. The Court did not agree with the imposition of costs as well.

“Be that as it may, even if we assume that the High Court was impelled to make such observations for its anguish in view of the infirmities referable to the original examiner, imposition of costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appear congruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistent with role of the University.”

The High Court’s direction of forwarding a copy of the judgment to the Principal Secretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (Secondary Education) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’ also does not appear to be of giving specific directions which are capable of implementation with certainty, the Court added. It expressed a similar view regarding the re-evaluation aspect as well.

“In other words, while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would be expected to issue only such directions which could be executed/implemented with certainty. The observations of the nature made by the High Court, which are largely of general expectations, are difficult to be approved as a mandamus from the writ Court.”

The Court clarified that when a particular litigation in reference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the decision should remain confined to the issues arising for determination. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered appropriate, it can be granted by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not beyond.

“In a matter of the present nature, if the assessment by one examiner/evaluator has been found questionable by the High Court, neither all the examiners could be presumed to be irresponsible nor every result declared by the University could be re-opened.”

On these grounds, the Apex Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside four paragraphs in the order.

Case Name: Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra Appellant(S) Vs Devarsh Nath Gupta & Ors | Civil Appeal No.1141 Of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 131

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Raveesha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv. Mrs. Shamama Anis, Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Omar Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad, AAG Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Ms. Marbiang N. Khanwir, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.

Re-evaluation of answer sheets- Supreme Court disapproves of High Court ordering re-evaluation of answer sheets when there was no statutory provisions- 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.- However, having regard to peculiar facts, SC refuses to interfere with the relief granted by the HC to the student, but does not endorse the process-Para 13- Follows Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs Dr. Yerra Trinadh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 909, Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others: (2018) 2 SCC 357, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another: (2010) 6 SCC 759