Sympathy Or Compassion Has No Role In Matter Of Directing Or Not Directing Re-Evaluation Of Answer Sheets: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheets. 

The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further observed that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet. 

The case in brief

The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission published an advertisement for filling the vacancies of Assistant Professor in various subjects. The petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Geography subject and examintation took place in written examination conducted on October 30, 2021.

After the examination, the answer key inviting objections from the candidates in case of any wrong answer in the answer key was published by the Commission. The petitioners found that answers to 10 questions given in the answer key published by Commission were wrong, therefore, they raised their objections before the commission.

Without considering the objections as raised by the petitioners, the results were declared by correcting one question. Now the candidates/petitioners came before the Court challenging the results. 

They also sought a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets on the basis of the answers as given by the petitioners in the objections and again declare the results.

Before the Court, they contended that the conduct of the commission to declare the result without considering the objections of the petitioners amounts to arbitrariness and hard-heartedness on their part.

Therefore, it was submitted that the selection of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Professor (Geography) had been denied by not taking into consideration the objections as raised by the petitioners, which in case done, the petitioners would have succeeded.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court stressed that the burden is always on the candidates, not only to demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also to show that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong.

Further, the Court opined that normally, the Constitutional Courts must exercise great restrain in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.

The Court was also of the view that the Courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of the candidates as it has no expertise in the matter, and that the academic matters are best left to the academicians there being no scope of judicial review in the matter

"The Court should not over step its jurisdiction by giving the directions for re-evaluation which would amount to judicially reviewing the decision of the expert in the field...Undoubtedly, the Courts cannot judicially review the expert opinion unless and until the key answer is patently wrong," the Court stressed.

The Court also underscored that when a decision is taken by the Committee of Expert having high academic qualifications and long experience in the specialised field, the Courts should not normally interfere in the matters.

"The Court has to proceed on the assumption and presumption that the answer key is correct as the same is based on experts opinion given by the persons specialised..." the court said as it found no good ground to interfere in the instant petition, the same was accordingly dismissed.

Case title - Anoop Kumar Singh And Another Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 295

Click Here To Read/Download Order