Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Directing NCERT To Redetermine Scores Of NTSE Exam Of 2013 After Considering English Marks

The Supreme Court recently set aside the order of the Rajasthan High Court that directed the NCERT to determine the merit of students afresh in the National Talent Search Examination (NTSE) of 2013 after considering their marks scored in the language test.

The Rajasthan High Court had granted relief two 10th Standard Students who had approached the High Court aggrieved by the decision of the examination committee to treat the language test only for qualification after it received representations from students stating that using the English language test for computing merit would cause prejudice to students from a rural background. This order was set aside by the Apex Court stating that the entire result would have to be redone if the order of the single bench was given effect to.  The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the HC order

The proceedings in the above matter had been tagged along with the batch of matters in the reference made to the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra which was considering the question of whether the rules of the game can be changed midway after the selection process has been initiated. The reference was made in view of conflicting judgments on the point "whether the rules of the game can be changed after the game has begun".

The matter was referred to the Constitution bench by a 3-judge bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540. In Tej Prakash, the bench doubted the correctness of an earlier decision in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512, where it was held that the selection criteria cannot be changed midway during the process as "it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible". The Manjusree case held as invalid a subsequent introduction of cut-off for the interview marks, which was not originally stipulated in the notification. In Tej Prakash, the three-bench judge doubted whether the prohibition against changing the rules of the game could be held as absolute and non-negotiable.

In the above case, the Single Judge of the High Court had placed reliance on K Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and the writ appeal challenging the order of the single judge was subsequently dismissed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court, while setting side the order of the High Court, stated it was not going into the broader question raised in the reference of whether the rules of the game can be changed after the game has begun. The Court observed that the order of the Single Bench would mean that the entire result of the exam would need to be redone.

“We are not inclined to go into the broader question which was raised on the reference to the Constitution Bench in the facts of the present case. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge would result in a situation where the entire result would have to be redone despite the fact that a conscious decision was taken in the interest of the students not to treat the language test as a merit based test but only for the purpose of qualification.” the Court stated in its order. 

The Court observed that 8 years had passed since the examination was conducted and that scholarships had already been awarded to students all over the country based on the result. The Court accordingly set aside the order without touching upon the issue in reference.

“If the judgment of the Single Judge were to be upheld, as has been done by the Division Bench, the result would have to be recast at this point of time, nearly eight years after the examination has been concluded. In the meantime, following the declaration of the results the award of scholarships following the NTSE has already taken place to a large number of students situated all over the country. In this backdrop and without this Court expressing any opinion on the broader question of law which was sought to be raised, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court which we accordingly do” the Court said in its order. 

Case Title: National Council of Educational Research and Training V. Parth Trivedi, Civil Appeal No 4403 of 2023

Click here to read the order