DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA versus DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS. on 14 February 2023

[2023] 2 S.C.R. 471

DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA

v.

DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 1141 of 2023)

FEBRUARY 14, 2023

[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India :Art. 226 – Exercise of power under –Order as regards re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts– Justification of – Writ of Mandamus by respondent No. 1 seekingre-checking of answer sheet of the paper of the physiology subjectthrough different examiners and to accept the amended result ifmarks were increased in re-checking – High Court allowed the writpetition by awarding the respondent no. 1, the average of the marksawarded by the three examiners – High Court further awarded Rs.1 lakh cost to respondent no. 1, gave liberty to the students whoappeared in preceding three years for applying for re-evaluation,and also directed that the copy of judgment to be sent to Secretariesof concerned Departments to ensure that the examiners/evaluatorsbe deployed in reasonably efficient manner – On appeal, held:Statute governing the examination does not provide for re-evaluationand scrutiny of the answer sheets – Award of marks in the descriptivetype answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessmentand the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment,which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator – Decision ofCourt of law ought to remain confined to the issues arising fordetermination in the matter – Imposition of costs not in consonancewith subject-matter – Direction to Principal Secretary not of specificnature and cannot be implemented with certainty – All concludedmatters cannot be re-opened – If the assessment by one examiner/evaluator is found questionable, all the examiner could not bepresumed to be irresponsible and every result declared by theUniversity could not be reopened – Substantive relief of award ofaverage marks to the respondent no. 1 not disturbed and otherdirections set aside.

471

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

APartly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Statute governing the examination inquestion does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of theanswer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptivetype answers essentially remains a matter of subjectiveBassessment and the Court would not be entering into that arenaof assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. [Para 13][483-D-E]

1.2 At any rate, in the adjudicatory process dealing with aprayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus with reference to theCgrievance of the writ petitioner and the facts emerging on record,the observations as to the status of teachers in the society andother co-related observations were not even required. Be thatas it may, even if it is assumed that the High Court was impelledto make such observations for its anguish in view of the infirmitiesreferable to the original examiner, imposition of costs in the sumDof Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appearcongruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistentwith role of the University. [Para 15][484-B-D]

1.3 Forwarding a copy of the judgment to the PrincipalSecretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (SecondaryEEducation) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in areasonably efficient manner’ does not appear to be of givingspecific directions which are capable of implementation withcertainty. In any case, such general expectations of reasonableefficiency are applicable to every area of activity, whether of anFindividual or of the State or of an instrumentality of the State but,stating such expectations as a part of mandamus of the Courtcannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements ofconcluding an adjudicatory process with certitude. In other words,while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would beexpected to issue only such directions which could be executed/Gimplemented with certainty. The observations of the nature madeby the High Court, which are largely of general expectations, aredifficult to be approved as a mandamus from the writ Court. [Para16][484-E-G]

1.4 The High Court proceeded to issue directions in theHmanner that all the examinations of the appellant-University during the preceding three years are thrown open for re-assessment or re- evaluation. There is no logic or rationale insuch directions, and is disapproved. When there is no provisionfor re- evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of anywrit of mandamus of this nature would practically amount toissuing directions for doing something which is not provided forby law. [Para 17, 17.2][484-G-H; 485-F]

1.5 In a Court of law, when a particular litigation in referenceto its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, thedecision ought to remain confined to the issues arising fordetermination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or directionis considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issuedby the Court only in direct correlation with the facts andcircumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for oneparticular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all theconcluded matters cannot be ordered to be re- opened. If theassessment by one examiner/evaluator has been foundquestionable by the High Court, neither all the examiners couldbe presumed to be irresponsible nor every result declared bythe University could be re-opened. [Para 17.1][485-B-C]

1.6 Even if the Court is to express its dissatisfaction asregards any particular state of affairs, the circumspection requisiteof the Court even as regards the expressions cannot be forsaken;and the relief to be granted in a given case ought to remainconfined to the subject-matter of litigation before the Court. Itgets perforce reiterated that one particular fault or infirmity atone particular level, when being appropriately dealt with by theCourt, cannot be generalised and all other similar processes inany institution or by the person concerned cannot be presumedto be suffering from illegalities or infirmities. The High Court inthe present case, while expressing its dissatisfaction, andpresumably to provide for a cleansing process, has inexplicablytravelled far beyond the issues at hand and has issued untenabledirections apart from making unnecessary observations. All thiswas avoidable; and ought to have been avoided. [Para 18][485-G-H; 486-A-B]

1.7 While not disturbing the directions and mandate inparagraph 29 of the order impugned as also the expressions of AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahope and trust in paragraph 31 of the order impugned, thedirections contained in paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the orderimpugned cannot be approved and are set aside. [Para 19][486-C-D]

Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.BMukesh Thakur and Another (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010]7 SCR 189; Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State ofUttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017]12 SCR 95; Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v.Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520– referred to.C

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1141 ofD2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in WC No.871 of 2019.

Ms. Astha Sharma, Ravinder Singh, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms.Raveesha Gupta, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani, ShreyasEAwasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana,Advs. for the Appellant.

Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad, AAG, Syed Mehdi Imam, AtifSuhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Tabrez Ahmad, Omar Siddiqui, VishnuShankar Jain, Ms. Marbiang N. Khanwir, Ashish Madaan, Advs. for theFRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

G

2. Having regard to a short point involved, we have heard learnedcounsel for the contesting parties finally at this stage itself.

3. The appellant–Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra[1] haspreferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated H1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant-University’.

21.05.2019, as passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 871 of 2019, whereby the HighCourt has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1[2], seekingissuance of a writ of mandamus for re-checking of his answer sheet ofPaper-II of the subject Physiology through different examiners and toaccept the amended result, if marks were increased in re-checking.

3.1. While dealing with the writ petition aforesaid, the High Court,after taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, gotthe answer sheet in question re-evaluated from three different examinersand, after noticing that the re-evaluated marks awarded by three differentexaminers were broadly similar but were much higher than the originalmarks, ordered that average of the marks so awarded by the threeexaminers be awarded to the writ petitioner in relation to the said Paper-II of Physiology. Not only this, the High Court further proceeded toaward costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioner with liberty tothe appellant-University to recover the amount from the examinerconcerned, after such inquiry as provided in law. Yet further, the HighCourt provided that if any student who had appeared in the examinationof the University in the preceding three years were to apply for re-assessment/re-evaluation, the same be not declined only on the groundthat no such procedure was prescribed in the Statute of the University.The High Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be forwardedto the Secretaries of Higher Education and Secondary EducationDepartments to look into the matter and to ensure that evaluators weredeployed ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’.

4. With reference to the subject-matter of the writ petition, thenature of order passed by the High Court and challenge thereto in thepresent appeal, we may take note of the relevant background aspects, inbrief, as follows:

4.1. The writ petitioner of this case (respondent No. 1 herein),being a student of M.B.B.S. Course at S.N. Medical College, Agra,affiliated to the appellant-University, appeared in M.B.B.S. (1[st]Professional) Examination held in the month of December, 2018. In theresult of the said examination, the writ petitioner was declared as failedeven after securing 344 marks out 600 for the reason that in Paper-II ofPhysiology, he got only 6 marks out of 50.

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4.2. Dissatisfied with the marks so awarded, the writ petitionerobtained a copy of the answer sheet of the said Paper-II of Physiologyand also applied for scrutiny of marks and re-checking of answer sheet.When no action was taken by the appellant-University for scrutiny orre-checking, the writ petitioner approached the High Court, seeking thefollowing reliefs:-B

A

“A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents toget the answer sheet of the Petitioner be rechecked throughdifferent examiner so that a proper checking of the answer-sheetof the Petitioner for Paper-II subject Physiology for M.B.B.S.(1st- Prof) Examination 2018 is done and it is further prayed thatCthis Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to direct the Respondentsthat in case the marks of the Petitioner are increased in therechecking then an amended result may also be issued in favourof the Petitioner within a stipulated time as may be directed bythis Hon’ble Court.

D

B. To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction infavour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit andproper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

C. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

E5. After examining the material placed on record, the High Courttook note of the fact that the paper in question contained 5 questionswith first 4 questions being of descriptive nature carrying 10 marks each;and the 5[th] question being divided in two parts, requiring short notescarrying 5 marks each. The High Court further took note of the fact thatas per the copy of answer sheet supplied to the writ petitioner, virtuallyFit was not evaluated by the examiner and without application of mind,abruptly 2 marks each were awarded in relation to three answers. Onperusal of the answer sheet and taking note of the submissions made onbehalf of the parties, the High Court, in its order dated 12.04.2019, putthe appellant-University to notice as to why serious action be not takenGagainst it and also considered expedient to adopt the procedure of gettingthe answer sheet evaluated by independent examiners. Accordingly, andin terms of the directions of the High Court, three sets of answer sheetwere prepared and were sent to three different examiners, whorespectively awarded 19, 20 and 21 marks in their individual andindependent evaluations. After finding material discrepancy in the marks H

awarded by the original examiner, particularly in view of the marksawarded by the said three independent examiners, the High Court statedits impressions and part of conclusions in the following terms (inparagraphs 15 and 16 of the order impugned): - “15. Evaluation made by above three Examiners broadly issimilar and there is no marked difference in evaluation made bythem. In the original marks awarded, petitioner has been given 2marks each in questions 1, 3 and 4 while in questions 2, 5(a) and5(b) all the three Examiners, who have made evaluation underthe orders of this Court have awarded reasonably good or somemarks to petitioners. Even on questions 1, 3 and 4, marks awardedby original Examiner do not come any closer to marks awardedby these three Examiners.

16. Since, we have gone through copy of answer sheet, whichpetitioner has obtained under Act 2005 and find that virtually it isunchecked copy and apparently it was evident that Examiner hasnot awarded marks by application of mind and, stand now fortifiedfrom evaluation made by three expert Examiners in the report.”

6. Thereafter, in paragraphs 17 to 28, the High Court expressedits anguish and disappointment that a beginner professional student wasmade to suffer because of an irresponsible and negligent examiner whodid not care to evaluate the answer sheet with due application of mindand then, proceeded to make observations that the facts of the casereflected upon the lack of efficiency and supervision on the part of theappellant-University. The High Court further made various commentsas regards career of the students and the requirements of improving theeducation system while curbing such infirmities where the examiners/evaluators were not serious enough in discharge of their duties. TheHigh Court also made extensive observations as regards the statusassigned to a teacher and that the traditional belief in the teachers wasbeing demolished by the persons like the examiner concerned of thepresent case. Yet further, the High Court expressed its serious concernas to how the examiners/evaluators were selected by the appellant-University while underscoring that the future of even a single studentcannot be compromised. Having said so, the High Court reverted to thefacts of the case and found it just and proper to direct the appellant-University to award the average of the marks awarded by the said threeexaminers to the writ petitioner and thus, to treat that he has been awarded A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A20 marks in the said Paper-II of Physiology, and to allow him to appearin further examinations accordingly.

7. After the aforesaid discussion, the High Court proceeded toaward costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioner payable by theappellant-University at the first instance with liberty to recover the amountBfrom the examiner. The High Court also expressed hope and trust thatthe appellant-University would take appropriate steps so that suchexaminers/evaluators were not deployed to evaluate the answer sheets.Moreover, the High Court even provided that if any student, who hadappeared in the examination of the appellant-University in the precedingthree years, were to apply for re-assessment or re-evaluation, the requestCbe not declined only on the ground that there was no provision of re-evaluation in the Statute of the appellant-University. A copy of judgmentwas also directed to be forwarded to the Secretaries of the Departmentsconcerned with the requirement that they would ensure that examiners/evaluators were deployed ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’ with strict Dinstructions so that no student might suffer on account of negligence/carelessness on the part of the examiners/evaluators. We may usefullyreproduce the concluding paragraphs of the order impugned as follows:- “29. Coming back to facts of this case, we have no option but todirect University to award average marks of three Examiners,awarded to petitioner under order of this Court and treat that heEhas been awarded 20 marks in Physiology, Paper-II and accordinglycorrect his marks sheet and result and allow him to appear infurther examinations accordingly.

30. We also find it appropriate to award a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-(i.e. rupees one lac) to petitioner, which at the first instance shallFbe payable by Agra University but it shall have liberty to recoverthe amount from concerned Examiner, after holding such enquiryas provided in law.

31. We hope and trust that Agra University, now shall takeappropriate steps so that such irresponsible, scrupulous, unmindfulGand negligent Examiners/Evaluators are not deployed in future toevaluate answer sheets, whether it is a professional examinationor general subjects or otherwise.

32. We also provide that, if any student who had appeared inexamination of Agra University in the preceding three years, apply H

GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

for reassessment or re-evaluation, taking present case asillustration, Agra University shall make reassessment/re-evaluationof answer sheet(s) of such student(s) and such case(s) shall notbe declined for re-evaluation/reassessment only on the groundthat there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Statute ofUniversity.

33. Copy of this judgment be also forwarded to Principal Secretary(Higher Education) as well as Secretary (Secondary Education),so that they may also look into the matter and ensure thatExaminers/Evaluators of answer sheets are deployed in areasonably efficient manner and there should be strict instructionsso that no student may suffer on account of negligence/carelessness etc. on the part of Examiners/Evaluators.”

8. Aggrieved by the directions and requirements aforesaid, theappellant-University has approached this Court. It may be observed thatafter taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, whileentertaining the petition seeking leave to appeal on 25.11.2019, this Courtstayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. We havebeen informed that before passing of such stay order by this Court, afew other writ petitions were filed in the High Court while relying uponthe impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and therein, the High Court passedthe orders for re-evaluation while following the decision in question. Bethat as it may, we are not commenting upon any other order which is notin challenge before this Court.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at somelength in relation to the observations made and the directions issued bythe High Court in the impugned order dated 21.05.2019.

9.1 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that theprocedure as adopted and the directions as issued in the present case bythe High Court are of uncontrollable ramifications, and do not stand inconformity with the requirements of law. It is submitted that when theStatute of the University makes no provision for re-evaluation of theanswer sheets, directions by the High Court practically make the Statuteof the University redundant and that remains impermissible in law. Adecision of this Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public ServiceCommission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another: (2010) 6 SCC 759has been referred to. It has also been submitted that the High Court has A

B

D

E

F

G

H

Afailed to consider that the question paper being a subjective one, themarking style and manner of different examiners cannot be equated asit has not been a case of objective type question paper where only oneanswer out of possible options may be correct. It has further beensubmitted that the original examiner had, in fact, scored out the otheranswers while giving no marks, which was equivalent to awarding ‘zero’Bmark; and his style of awarding marks could not have been taken as anirresponsible manner of evaluation. The learned counsel has also reliedupon the decision of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. Stateof Uttar Pradesh and Others: (2018) 2 SCC 357.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondentCNo. 1) has duly supported the order impugned with the submissions thathe was required to approach the Court when left with no other option;and the present one had clearly been a case of the examiner failing in hisduty to properly evaluate the answer sheet of the writ petitioner. Learnedcounsel would submit that in the given set of facts and circumstances,Dthe reliefs granted by the High Court do not call for any interference.

11. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissionsand having examined the record, while we do not feel inclined to upsetthe substantive relief granted to the writ petitioner in paragraph 29 of theimpugned order in the peculiar circumstances of the case but, we haveEnot an iota of doubt that all other directions and mandate issued by theHigh Court in the order impugned cannot be approved.

12. As regards the question of re-evaluation, the principlesenunciated by this Court could be usefully recapitulated as follows:

12.1. In the case of Mukesh Thakur (supra) this Court observedFand held as under: - “24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more resintegra. This issue was considered at length by this Courtin Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and HigherSecondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984)G4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543], wherein this Court rejected thecontention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, adirection to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Courtfurther held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluationcannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that theH

policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Courtheld as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16)

“14. … It is exclusively within the province of thelegislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter ofpolicy, how the provisions of the statute can best beimplemented and what measures, substantive as well asprocedural would have to be incorporated in the rules orregulations for the efficacious achievement of the objectsand purposes of the Act. …

16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdomof the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinateregulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which willfully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may belacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision andimprovement. But any drawbacks in the policyincorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultravires and the Court cannot strike it down on the groundthat, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but iseven a foolish one, and that it will not really serve toeffectuate the purposes of the Act.”

25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiteratedby this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar PublicService Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883: AIR 2004 SC 4116] observing as under : (SCC pp. 717-18, para7)

“7. … Under the relevant rules of the Commission, thereis no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to askfor revaluation of his answer book. There is a provisionfor scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen forthe purpose of checking whether all the answers given bya candidate have been examined and whether there hasbeen any mistake in the totalling of marks of each questionand noting them correctly on the first cover page of theanswer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny nomistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellantin the General Science paper. In the absence of anyprovision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

rules, no candidate in an examination has got any rightwhatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.”***************

A

26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effectthat in the absence of any provision under the statute orBstatutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generallydirect revaluation.”

(emphasis supplied)

12.2. Further, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this Courthas observed and held as under: -C

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and weonly propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examinationpermits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of ananswer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conductingDthe examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing anexamination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny ofan answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then thecourt may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it isEdemonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential processof reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only inrare or exceptional cases that a material error has beencommitted; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise theFanswer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matterand academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the keyanswers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to theGexamination authority rather than to the candidate.”

(emphasis supplied)

12.3. Recently, in the case of Dr. NTR University of HealthSciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520,this Court has, after referring to the previous decisions, including that inH

the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), thoroughly disapproved the processof the Court calling for answer sheets for satisfying as to whether therewas a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter, issuing directions forre-evaluation. This Court has observed and held as under: - “9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, weare of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified incalling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whetherthere was a need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the HighCourts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfyingwhether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafterorders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Sucha practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets andthereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of anyspecific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and thattoo while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is disapproved.”

13. It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing theexamination in question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutinyof the answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptivetype answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment andthe Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, whichremains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. Therefore, in the ordinarycircumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the processas adopted by the High Court could not have been given our imprimatur.However, on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances ofthe present case, we are refraining from interfering in the substantivepart of the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasonsthat a direct prohibition in the Statute in question has not been shown;the original examiner seems to have totally omitted to award the marksin relation to answer Nos. 2, 5(a) and 5(b); the process of evaluation byother examiners has been adopted and taken forward by the High Courtby providing for awarding of average of the marks of the three examiners;and any interference at this length of time might entail serious adverseconsequences to the writ petitioner. However, we need to make it clearin no uncertain terms that non-interference in the present case is not tobe construed as any endorsement by this Court to the process adoptedby the High Court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

14. Moving on to the other relevant aspects of the matter emanatingfrom the observations and directions in the order impugned, we are clearlyof the view that even if we do not disturb the relief of award of modifiedmarks as granted to the writ petitioner, the other observations anddirections in the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 cannot be approved.

A

B15. Having gone through the impugned order dated 21.05.2019,we are constrained to observe that major part of the observationsoccurring in paragraphs 17 to 28 thereof had been rather unnecessary.At any rate, in the adjudicatory process dealing with a prayer for issuanceof a writ of mandamus with reference to the grievance of the writpetitioner and the facts emerging on record, the observations as to theCstatus of teachers in the society and other co-related observations were,in our view, not even required. Be that as it may, even if we assume thatthe High Court was impelled to make such observations for its anguishin view of the infirmities referable to the original examiner, imposition ofcosts in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appearDcongruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistent with roleof the University.

16. Yet further, forwarding a copy of the judgment to the PrincipalSecretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (SecondaryEducation) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in aEreasonably efficient manner’ does not appear to be of giving specificdirections which are capable of implementation with certainty. In anycase, such general expectations of reasonable efficiency are applicableto every area of activity, whether of an individual or of the State or of aninstrumentality of the State but, stating such expectations as a part ofmandamus of the Court cannot be said to be in conformity with theFrequirements of concluding an adjudicatory process with certitude. Inother words, while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would beexpected to issue only such directions which could be executed/implemented with certainty. The observations of the nature made by theHigh Court, which are largely of general expectations, are difficult to beGapproved as a mandamus from the writ Court.

17. Apart from the above, what has been directed in paragraph32 of the order impugned is required to be disapproved in toto. In thesaid paragraph 32, the High Court has proceeded to issue directions inthe manner that all the examinations of the appellant-University duringHthe preceding three years are thrown open for re-assessment or re-

evaluation. With respect, we are unable to find any logic or rationale insuch directions.

17.1. In our view, in a Court of law, when a particular litigation inreference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily,the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determinationin the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is consideredappropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only indirect correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and notbeyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in oneparticular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re-opened. In a matter of the present nature, if the assessment by oneexaminer/evaluator has been found questionable by the High Court, neitherall the examiners could be presumed to be irresponsible nor every resultdeclared by the University could be re-opened. As noticed, on 25.11.2019,while entertaining the petition leading to this appeal, this Court stayedthe operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. However, beforegranting of stay by this Court, several other writ petitions were filed inthe High Court, seeking the same relief of re-evaluation or re-checking;and the learned Single Judge of the High Court had no option but togrant the prayers. We are constrained to observe that all such unnecessarylitigations had their genesis only in the unwarranted directions, as containedin the said paragraph 32 of the order impugned.

17.2. As aforesaid, we would not be re-opening any concludedmatter which is not in challenge before us but, with respect, we need toobserve that the directions contained in paragraph 32 of the orderimpugned remain wholly untenable and are required to be annulled alltogether. In this regard, we may also observe that when there is noprovision for re-evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance ofany writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to issuingdirections for doing something which is not provided for by law.

18. We could summarise by saying that in a given case, even ifthe Court is to express its dissatisfaction as regards any particular stateof affairs, the circumspection requisite of the Court even as regards theexpressions cannot be forsaken; and the relief to be granted in a givencase ought to remain confined to the subject-matter of litigation beforethe Court. Even the process of granting of ancillary or other relief orissuance of other direction cannot travel beyond the real questions incontroversy before the Court. It gets perforce reiterated that one AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aparticular fault or infirmity at one particular level, when beingappropriately dealt with by the Court, cannot be generalised and all othersimilar processes in any institution or by the person concerned cannot bepresumed to be suffering from illegalities or infirmities. The High Courtin the present case, while expressing its dissatisfaction, and presumablyto provide for a cleansing process, has inexplicably travelled far beyondBthe issues at hand and has issued untenable directions apart from makingunnecessary observations. All this, in our view, was avoidable; and oughtto have been avoided. We say no more.

19. For what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, whilenot disturbing the directions and mandate in paragraph 29 of the orderCimpugned as also the expressions of hope and trust in paragraph 31 ofthe order impugned, we are clearly of the view that the directionscontained in paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the order impugned cannot beapproved and deserve to be set aside.

20. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this appeal succeedsDand is allowed in part and to the extent that paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 ofthe order impugned are annulled and are set aside. No costs.

21. Needless to reiterate that the relief otherwise given to thewrit petitioner (respondent No. 1) by other part of the order impugnedremains undisturbed only for the peculiar circumstances of the presentEcase.

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Vinayak and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)

Appeal partly allowed.

F

G

H