Burden To Prove 'Fair Evaluation' Can't Be Shifted On Examining Body Unless Candidate Produces Answer Script To Prove Discrepancy In Marking: Allahabad High Court

The remarks were made by a single bench of Justice Yashwant Varma in a writ petition filed by one Manoj Kumar Tiwari, seeking re-evaluation of his answer script for a particular subject in the entrance exam conducted for admissions to D.EL.E.D. course.

After being declared unsuccessful in the entrance exam and on being denied admission, he had petitioned before the Court for the revaluation.

The very first observation made by the Court was that the petitioner had failed to present before it, a copy of the answer script in question. The procedure of obtaining a copy of the answer script has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhya & Ors., the Bench reminded the Petitioner.

It stated that for the Court to establish that the examination authority has made a mistake in the evaluation of an answer script, it is crucial for the petitioner to first prove that such an illegality has been committed by the examiner. This, the Court stated, cannot be done without a copy of the answer script. "The onus and burden on this aspect lies solely on the petitioner and is one which must be discharged at the threshold," asserted the Court.

It was further clarified that the evaluation done by the examiner should not be called into questioning unless it is established that the said evaluation was not done in a fair or transparent manner.

"A challenge to an evaluation undertaken by examining bodies, in any case, on a mere allegation that 'possibility of errors in calculation of marks cannot be ruled out...' cannot be countenanced. It must necessarily, for reasons aforenoted, stand on sounder footing," stated the Court.

It further remarked, "The conduct of examinations by educational authorities cannot be lightly interfered with unless the petition rests on a strong foundation and it is at least prima facie established that there has been an apparent and evident mistake in the process of evaluation."

The Court made a note of the submission made by the Counsel for the Respondent that "no provision for re-evaluation exists in terms of which a direction as claimed by the petitioner may be issued" and further noted that the while the absence for the provision pertaining to re-evaluation of answer script might not completely stop a candidate from challenging that evaluation under Article 226, this power of the Court can only be invoked in rare circumstances where the mistake and illegality in the evaluation is clear and obvious. In this context, the Court referred to Ran Vijay Singh v. State of UP, whereby it was held that:

"If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed."

Before concluding, the Court held, "As is evident from the above exposition of the law on the subject, there must be a demonstrable illegality in the evaluation undertaken and only in such rare and exceptional cases would the Court be legally justified in invoking its jurisdiction."

After taking all the facts and arguments presented before it, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order