OVERVIEW
• Justice Yashwant Varma was hearing to a writ appeal recorded by one Manoj Kumar Tiwari, looking for re-assessment of his answer content for a specific subject in the entrance test directed for admissions to D.EL.E.D. course
• After being proclaimed unsuccessful in the selection test and on being denied confirmation, he had requested of under the watchful eye of the Court for the revaluation.
• The absolute first perception made by the Court was that the candidate had neglected to introduce before it, a duplicate of the appropriate response content being referred to.
• The system of acquiring a duplicate of the appropriate response content has been set somewhere around the Supreme Court in the Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandhopadhya and Ors., bench addressed.
BENCH's POINT OF VIEW
• It stated that for the Court to establish that the examination authority has made a mistake in the evaluation of an answering script,it is essential for the candidate to initially demonstrate that such wrongdoing has been submitted by the examiner.
• The Court stated, cannot be done without a copy of the answer script. "The onus and burden on this aspect lie solely on the petitioner and is one which must be discharged at the threshold," asserted the Court.
• It was further clarified that the evaluation done by the examiner should not be called into questioning unless it is established that the said evaluation was not done fairly or transparently.
• Court further noticed that "A challenge to an evaluation undertaken by examining bodies, in any case, on a mere allegation that 'possibility of errors in the calculation of marks cannot be ruled out...' cannot be countenanced. It must necessarily, for reasons aforenoted, stand on sounder footing,"
• It further remarked, "The conduct of examinations by educational authorities can't be delicately meddled with except if the request lays on a solid establishment and it is in any event by all appearances set up that there has been a clear and apparent slip-up during the process of evaluation,"
• The Court made a note of the point made by the Counsel for the Respondent that " no provision for re-evaluation exists in terms of which a direction" and further noticed that the while the non-attendance for the provision aboutthe re-evaluation of answer script might not completely stop a candidate from challenging that evaluation under Article 226, this intensity of the Court must be conjured in uncommon conditions where the misstep and lawlessness in the evaluation are clear and self-evident. In this unique situation.
BENCH's DECISION
• "If a resolution, Rule or Regulation administering an assessment doesn't allow re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as unmistakable from restricting it) at that point the court may allow re-assessment or investigation just if it is shown obviously, with no "inferential cycle of thinking or by a cycle of defence" and just in uncommon or excellent cases that a material mistake has been submitted.” The Court alluded to Ran Vijay Singh v. Province of UP.
• Under the watchful eye of finishing up, the Court held, "As is clear from the above composition of the law regarding the matter, there should be a demonstrable illegality in the evaluation undertaken and just in such uncommon and exceptional cases would the Court be legally justified in summoning its jurisdiction."
• Eventually, HC observed that the practice of approaching this Court directly without obtaining copies of the answer scripts or seeking directions requiring examining bodies to produce answer books cannot but be deprecated in the strongest terms, discouraged and curbed,"
• After taking all the facts and arguments presented before it, the Court dismissed the petition.
DO YOU THINK DECISION MADE BY COURT IS JUSTIFIABLE? MENTION YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW! /strong>
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
