DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES versus DR. YERRA TRINADH & OTHERS on 4 November 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the High Court of AndhraPradesh at Amravati in Writ Appeal Nos. 363 & 364 of 2019, by whichthe Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appealsand has confirmed the common judgment and order dated 19.09.2019passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 10376/2019 and9486/2019 ordering/directing the re-evaluation of the answer scripts ofthe respective original writ petitioners who appeared in post-graduationin diploma course in the NTR University of Health Sciences (appellantherein), the University has preferred the present appeals.

2. That the original writ petitioners appeared in post-graduationdiploma course conducted by the appellant – University. There was adigital evaluation of the answer scripts. In the first round of litigation,certain directions were issued by the learned Single Judge how to evaluatethe answer scripts. The respective students – original writ petitionerswere not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer scripts and thereforethey filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge praying for re-evaluation of their answer scripts, which were evaluated digitally.

2.1 The learned Single Judge called for the record and afterperusing the record, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that theevaluation of the answer scripts was not in line with the directions issuedby the learned Single Judge issued in the earlier round of litigation andthat there was no proper evaluation of the answer scripts. By observingso, the learned Single Judge ordered re-evaluation of the answer scriptsafresh as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four freshexaminers. While allowing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judgedirected/ordered as under:

“Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directedto get the petitioners’ answer scripts once again evaluation as perthe prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners.They are also directed to give clear and categorical instructionsto the said new set of examiners to physically put the marks etc.on the uploaded answer script. The identified GloberanaTechnologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad should be directed to teachthe examiner, the manner of evaluating the digital/upload answer A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Asheet (if necessary). The corrected sheet must be preserved forfuture review and in order to seek whether the examiner hasapplied his mind while evaluating the answer scripts or not. Theentire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeksfrom today.”

B2.2 The common judgment and order passed by the learned SingleJudge was the subject matter of writ appeals before the Division Bench.Before the Division Bench, it was specifically contended on behalf ofthe appellant – University that as there was no provision for re-evaluationand therefore in absence of having any such provision, the learned SingleJudge was not justified in ordering re-evaluation. It was submitted thatCthough the said plea was specifically taken before the learned SingleJudge, the learned Single Judge did not address on the said objection.That by the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Benchof the High Court has dismissed the writ appeals preferred by theUniversity. Hence, the present appeals.D

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while issuing noticein the present appeals, this Court passed the following order on 9.4.2021:

“Delay condoned.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the resultsEfor the final year PG Degree/Diploma examination pertaining torespondent Nos.1-23 have already been declared. Some of themhave passed in the re-evaluation and the others have passed inthe subsequent supplementary examination. He submits that theresults announced in respect of respondent Nos. 1-23 shall not bedisturbed in any manner. However, the learned senior counselFsubmits that there is no provision for re-evaluation in spite of whichthe High Court has directed re-evaluation of MBBS/PGExaminations. He further submits that there are a number ofmatters pending in the High Court on the same point.

Issue notice returnable in four weeks.G

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.”

4. Therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court dated9.4.2021, the results declared on the basis of the re-evaluation pursuantto the order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirmed by the DivisionBench, shall not be disturbed in any manner. It is reported that not onlyH

the results on re-evaluation have been declared, even the respectiveoriginal writ petitioners who were declared passed on re-evaluation arealso issued respective degrees in their favours in PG Degree/Diplomacourse. However, as observed in order dated 9.4.2021 that number ofmatters are pending in the High Court on the same point, learned counselappearing on behalf of the University has prayed to consider the issueon merits, namely, “whether, in absence of any provision for re-evaluation,the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation, while exercisingpowers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”?

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University hasvehemently submitted that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation,the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answersheets/answer scripts and that too while exercising powers under Article226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, heavyreliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of PramodKumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 714) (paragraph 7 & 8); and therecent decision of this Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta &Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 309.

5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-University has taken us to the affidavit of the Registrar, filed pursuant tothe order passed by this Court on 17.01.2022, by which the Universitywas permitted to file an affidavit giving the details of the digital evaluationof the answer sheets. It is submitted that the University has introduceddigital evaluation (online evaluation) for the answer scripts of PG Degree/Diploma Examinations. It is submitted that initially the pilot project wasentrusted to M/s. Globarena Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad whichhad scanned the answer sheets for online evaluation and the same wereevaluated online by the examiners. It is submitted that after satisfyingthe pilot project for digital evaluation, the University placed the same in221[st] meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.07.2016 and theExecutive Council verified the method of digital evaluation and theservices of the nodal company under the supervision of the University.It is submitted that thereafter the resolution was passed by the ExecutiveCouncil to go for digital evaluation. It is submitted that in pursuance ofthe said resolution, the University has evaluated the answer scripts digitallyfor every examination and there is no manual evaluation after theresolution by the Executive Council for digital evaluation.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A5.2 It is further submitted that thereafter and after passing thejudgment by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 26929/2016, the Universityhas taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by the High Court andimproved the system of digital evaluation. It is submitted that subsequentlythe present digital evaluation system after improvements and modificationshas been approved by the High Court in the recent decision in WritBPetition No. 15865/2022.

A

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective originalwrit petitioners have submitted that so far as the original writ petitionersare concerned, as they are declared pass after re-evaluation and/orappearing in the supplementary examination and their results have beenCdeclared and they are awarded degrees, the same may not be disturbedas observed by this Court in order dated 9.4.2021.

7. The short question which is posed for consideration before thisCourt is, “whether in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, theHigh Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation after calling for theDrecord of the answer scripts?

8. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, few decisionsof this Court including two, referred to hereinabove, which have beenrelied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University,are required to be referred to and considered.

E

8.1 In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), it isobserved and held by this Court that in absence of any provisionfor re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right toclaim or demand re-evaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is observedand held as under:

F

“7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in personand learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length.The main question which arises for consideration is whetherthe learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluationof the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper.Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provisionwherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluationof his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny onlywherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checkingwhether all the answers given by a candidate have beenexamined and whether there has been any mistake in the G

H

DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. DR. YERRATRINADH & OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctlyon the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no disputethat after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awardedto the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absenceof any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in therelevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any rightwhatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.This question was examined in considerable detailin Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and HigherSecondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth[(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevantrules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on anapplication made to that effect by a candidate. Some of thestudents filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowedto inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed toconduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as thepetitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court heldthat the rule providing for verification of marks gave an impliedpower to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspectionand also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. Thejudgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held thatin absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon anexaminee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no suchdirection can be issued. There is no dispute that under therelevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitlinga candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such asituation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petitionwas wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearlyerred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.

8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned SingleJudge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidatesmay like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of theiranswer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on differentdates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commissionwill have to then send the copies of individual candidates toexaminers for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. Theexamination conducted by the Commission being a competitiveexamination, the declaration of final result will thus be undulydelayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

H

What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marksas originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration.The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw manyproblems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.”

8.2 In the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2SCC 357, in paragraph 32, it is observed and held as under:

“32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions ofthis Court, some of which have been discussed above, there isinterference by the courts in the result of examinations. Thisplaces the examination authorities in an unenviable positionwhere they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examinationexercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there isno doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparingfor an examination, it must not be forgotten that even theexamination authorities put in equally great efforts tosuccessfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the taskmight reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court mustconsider the internal checks and balances put in place by theexamination authorities before interfering with the efforts putin by the candidates who have successfully participated in theexamination and the examination authorities. The presentappeals are a classic example of the consequence of suchinterference where there is no finality to the result of theexaminations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from theexamination authorities even the candidates are left wonderingabout the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination — whether they have passed or not; whether their result willbe approved or disapproved by the court; whether they willget admission in a college or university or not; and whetherthey will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation doesnot work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertaintyresults in confusion being worse confounded. The overall andlarger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”

8.3 In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), after consideringcatena of decisions on scope of judicial review with regard to re-evaluation of the answer sheets, it is observed and held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of acandidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academicmatters are best left to academics.

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are ofthe opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling therecord of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was aneed for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are callingfor the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need forre-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which iswholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answersheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence ofany specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that toowhile exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India isdisapproved.

10. Even otherwise, in the present case, the University has adoptedthe digital evaluation which has been subsequently modified/improvedand the deficiencies have been removed, which has now been approvedby the High Court in the recent decision in Writ Petition No. 15865/2022. The digital evaluation process is reported to be scrupulouslyfollowed by the University. From the affidavit filed on behalf of theUniversity on use of digital evaluation, it appears that all precautions arebeing taken to have the accurate evaluation digitally. There are specificinstructions and trainings to the examiners while conducting digitalevaluation. It is reported that the faculty has utilised the updated softwareby using the tools and annotations incorporated in the software adoptedby the University. In any case, in absence of any regulation for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in theUniversity Rules, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluationof the answer scripts. As observed and held by this Court in the case ofRan Vijay Singh (supra) that sympathy or compassion does not playany role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of ananswer sheet.

11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thecommon judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge orderingre-evaluation of the answer scripts, confirmed by the Division Bench bythe impugned common judgment and order, is unsustainable. However,as observed hereinabove, as the results of the original writ petitioners AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aafter re-evaluation or appearing in the supplementary examination havebeen declared, while quashing and setting aside the impugned commonjudgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well asDivision Bench of the High Court, the same shall not be affected and/ordisturbed. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by thelearned Single Judge as well as Division Bench ordering re-evaluationBof the answer scripts in absence of any such provision in the relevantrules are hereby quashed and set aside. However, as observedhereinabove, the same shall not affect the declaration of the results ofthe original writ petitioners on re-evaluation or appearing in thesupplementary examination.C12. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed. No order as tocosts.

D

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H