Summary
After repeated evaluations and eight years of teacher-recruitment litigation, the Court restated strict limits on judicial intervention in examination answers. It nevertheless ordered publication of the completed third results, protected existing appointees and directed supernumerary appointments for newly successful candidates, without consequential benefits.
Issues
- When courts may permit examination re-evaluation absent an express enabling provision.
- What relief should resolve the already completed third evaluation without displacing serving teachers.
Held
- Where governing provisions permit re-evaluation or scrutiny, the examination authority may allow it accordingly. Where they do not permit it, as distinct from prohibiting it, a court may intervene only in rare or exceptional cases of material error clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning or rationalization. (¶¶ 18–19, 30)
- Courts should not themselves re-evaluate or scrutinize answers, lacking academic expertise. Correctness of the key is presumed and doubt favours the examination authority. Sympathy does not justify re-evaluation; the impact on the entire examination and internal safeguards must be considered. (¶ 30–33)
- The Single Judge’s personal determination of disputed answers was impermissible. Given the completed third evaluation, the Court adopted a case-specific practical remedy rather than nullifying the entire process or cancelling the examination. (¶ 33–37)
- A coordinate Bench’s contrary view cannot simply be ignored. Judicial discipline requires following the established procedure when a judge disagrees with an earlier coordinate decision. (¶ 38)
Result
Appeals and miscellaneous applications disposed of. Board to publish third results within two weeks. Earlier-appointed working teachers to continue even if unsuccessful under those results; newly selected teachers to be appointed on supernumerary posts without consequential benefits.