Summary
An MBBS student who scored only 6 of 50 in one Physiology paper found his answer sheet virtually unevaluated; the Allahabad High Court had it assessed by three independent examiners, directed the university to award their average of 20 marks, imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh recoverable from the examiner, directed that any student of the preceding three years seeking re-evaluation not be refused for want of a provision, and sent the judgment to State Secretaries. The Supreme Court partly allowed the university's appeal: courts should not order re-evaluation where the statute makes no provision, as held in Mukesh Thakur, Ran Vijay Singh and Dr. NTR University, and the award of marks was left undisturbed only on the peculiar facts without endorsing the process; the costs, the direction to Secretaries and the reopening of three years of examinations travelled beyond the lis and were set aside.
Issues
- Whether a High Court may order re-evaluation of an answer sheet through independent examiners where the university's statute makes no provision for re-evaluation.
- Whether, on finding one examiner's assessment defective, the High Court could impose costs on the university, direct re-evaluation for all students of the preceding three years and issue general directions to State Secretaries.
Provisions considered
- Article 226 (writ of mandamus), Constitution of IndiaA mandamus must be confined to the subject matter of the litigation and be capable of certain implementation; directions founded on general expectations of efficiency, or throwing open all concluded examinations of three years for one examiner's fault, amount to directing what the law does not provide and cannot be sustained. (¶¶ 16, 17, 17.1, 17.2, 18)
Held
- Following Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Sheth, Mukesh Thakur and Ran Vijay Singh, in the absence of a statutory provision a court should not generally direct re-evaluation, should not itself scrutinise answer sheets and may interfere only in rare cases of demonstrable material error; Dr. NTR University disapproves the practice of calling for answer scripts to decide whether re-evaluation is needed. Marks in descriptive answers are a matter of subjective assessment reserved to the examiner. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 13)
- Because no express prohibition in the statute was shown, the original examiner appeared to have omitted to mark three answers altogether, the High Court had already adopted an averaging process, and interference after this lapse of time would gravely prejudice the student, the award of 20 marks in paragraph 29 is not disturbed, but this is no endorsement of the High Court's process. The observations in paragraphs 17 to 28 on the status of teachers were unnecessary, costs of Rs. 1 lakh were incongruent with the university's role, and one fault by one examiner cannot justify presuming all results of three years to be infirm. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1, 18)
Result
Appeal partly allowed without costs; paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 21.05.2019 in Civil Misc. WP No. 871 of 2019 (costs of Rs. 1 lakh, re-evaluation for students of the preceding three years, and directions to State Secretaries) annulled; the direction in paragraph 29 awarding the student 20 marks in Physiology Paper II and the expression of hope in paragraph 31 left undisturbed on the peculiar facts.