Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets: Supreme Court clarifies position in Dr. B R Ambedkar University vs. Devarsh Nath Gupta (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 116
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
Can a High Court order re-evaluation of answer sheets when the university’s statutes do not allow for it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a student’s grievance over marks awarded in an MBBS examination. The Court clarified the extent to which High Courts can intervene in academic matters, particularly concerning the re-evaluation of answer sheets when the university’s regulations do not provide for such a process. The judgment was authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Sanjay Kumar concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Devarsh Nath Gupta, a student of the M.B.B.S. course at S.N. Medical College, Agra, which is affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. The student appeared for the M.B.B.S. (1st Professional) Examination in December 2018. Despite securing 344 marks out of 600, he was declared failed because he received only 6 marks out of 50 in Paper-II of Physiology.

Dissatisfied with the marks, the student obtained a copy of his answer sheet and applied for scrutiny and re-checking. When the University did not take any action, the student approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking a direction for re-evaluation of his answer sheet by different examiners, and for an amended result if marks were increased.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, after examining the answer sheet, noted that the original evaluation was inadequate, with the examiner awarding only 2 marks each for three descriptive answers. The High Court directed the University to have the answer sheet evaluated by three independent examiners. These examiners awarded 19, 20, and 21 marks, respectively. The High Court then ordered the University to award the average of these marks (20) to the student. Additionally, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the University, with the liberty to recover the amount from the negligent examiner. The High Court also directed that if any student from the preceding three years applied for re-evaluation, the request should not be denied solely on the ground that there was no provision for it in the University’s statutes.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several of its previous judgments to establish the legal position on re-evaluation of answer sheets. It emphasized that in the absence of any provision in the statute or statutory rules, the Court should generally not direct re-evaluation. The Court cited the following cases:

• Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 759]: This case established that courts should not direct re-evaluation of answer sheets unless there is a specific provision in the statute or rules. The Court reiterated that it cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature or subordinate regulation-making body.
• Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27]: This case rejected the contention that in the absence of a provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. It further held that even a policy decision not providing for rechecking cannot be challenged unless it violates a statutory provision.
• Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714]: The Court reiterated that in the absence of any provision for revaluation, a candidate has no right to claim it.
• Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2018) 2 SCC 357]: This case clarified that if a statute does not permit re-evaluation, a court may allow it only in rare cases where a material error is demonstrated without any inferential reasoning. The court should not re-evaluate answer sheets, as it lacks expertise in academic matters, and should presume the correctness of key answers.
• Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520]: The Court disapproved the practice of calling for answer sheets to determine if re-evaluation is needed, emphasizing that such a practice is impermissible without specific provisions in the rules.

Arguments

Arguments of the University:

• The University argued that the High Court’s directions for re-evaluation were inconsistent with the law, as the University’s Statute did not provide for re-evaluation.
• It contended that the High Court’s order made the University’s Statute redundant, which is legally impermissible. The University relied on the decision in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 759] to support its argument that re-evaluation cannot be directed in the absence of a statutory provision.
• The University submitted that the High Court failed to consider that the question paper was subjective, and the marking styles of different examiners cannot be equated. It argued that the original examiner’s style of awarding marks could not be deemed irresponsible.
• The University also relied upon the decision of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others: [(2018) 2 SCC 357]

Arguments of the Student:

• The student argued that he was compelled to approach the court because the examiner failed to properly evaluate his answer sheet.
• The student contended that, given the circumstances, the relief granted by the High Court was justified and did not warrant any interference.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court could direct re-evaluation of an answer sheet when the university’s statute does not provide for it. The related issues were:

• Whether the High Court was justified in directing the University to award average marks based on the re-evaluation by three independent examiners.
• Whether the High Court was correct in directing the University to allow re-evaluation for students of the preceding three years.
• Whether the High Court’s observations and directions regarding the status of teachers and the education system were necessary and appropriate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 759]*, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27]*, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714]* and Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2018) 2 SCC 357]* to emphasize that re-evaluation cannot be directed in the absence of a statutory provision.
• The Court cited Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520]* to disapprove the practice of calling for answer sheets to determine if re-evaluation is needed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, balancing the need to uphold the law with the specific circumstances of the case. The Court was clearly concerned about the inadequate evaluation by the original examiner, which led to the High Court’s intervention. However, the Court also emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles regarding re-evaluation of answer sheets.

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the specific facts of the case, particularly the inadequate evaluation by the original examiner, than by the strict application of the law. While the Court acknowledged the legal principles against re-evaluation, it made an exception in this case due to the exceptional circumstances. The ratio of fact to law is 60:40.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was a step-by-step process, starting with the identification of the core issue, acknowledging the facts of the case, and then applying the relevant legal principles. The Court’s decision to uphold the re-evaluation in this specific case was based on the exceptional circumstances, while it also emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles. The Court’s reasoning reflects a balance between fairness and adherence to the law.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as completely setting aside the High Court’s order. However, it rejected this approach due to the specific facts of the case and the need to provide relief to the student who had suffered due to the inadequate evaluation. The final decision was reached by balancing the need to uphold the law with the need to provide justice in the specific circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily based on the following reasons:

• The original examiner’s evaluation was found to be inadequate and negligent.
• The re-evaluation process was already completed by the High Court.
• A direct prohibition in the Statute in question has not been shown.
• Any interference at this stage would have caused serious adverse consequences to the student.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices agreeing on the final outcome. There were no dissenting opinions.

The decision implies that while courts should generally not interfere in academic matters, they can make exceptions in cases of gross negligence or injustice. This decision may lead to more scrutiny of evaluation processes and may encourage universities to adopt clearer guidelines for re-evaluation.

No new doctrines were introduced. However, the Court reiterated the existing principles regarding re-evaluation of answer sheets and clarified the circumstances under which courts can make exceptions.

Key Takeaways

• Courts should generally not direct re-evaluation of answer sheets unless the university’s statutes or rules provide for it.
• Exceptions can be made in cases of gross negligence or injustice, but these should be rare and based on specific facts.
• High Courts should avoid issuing general directions that go beyond the scope of the specific litigation.
• Universities should ensure that examiners are diligent in their evaluation work.
• Universities should have clear guidelines for addressing grievances related to evaluation of answer sheets.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The directions in paragraphs 30, 32, and 33 of the High Court’s order were set aside.
• The relief granted to the student in paragraph 29 of the High Court’s order (awarding average marks) was not disturbed.
• The expressions of hope and trust in paragraph 31 of the High Court’s order were not disturbed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while courts should generally not interfere in academic matters and direct re-evaluation of answer sheets, exceptions can be made in cases of gross negligence or injustice. This case does not change the previous position of law, but it clarifies the circumstances under which courts can make exceptions to the general rule.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. B R Ambedkar University vs. Devarsh Nath Gupta clarifies the position on re-evaluation of answer sheets when university statutes do not provide for it. While the Court upheld the relief granted to the student in this specific case due to the exceptional circumstances, it emphasized that courts should generally not direct re-evaluation in the absence of a statutory provision. The judgment sets aside several directions of the High Court, highlighting the need for judicial restraint in academic matters.

Category

Parent Category: Education Law

Child Categories:

• University Regulations
• Examination and Evaluation
• Re-evaluation of Answer Sheets
• Judicial Review of Academic Matters

Parent Category: Administrative Law

Child Categories:

• Judicial Review
• Writ of Mandamus

FAQ

Q: Can I request a re-evaluation of my answer sheet if I am not satisfied with my marks?
A: Generally, you cannot request a re-evaluation of your answer sheet unless the university’s statutes or rules specifically provide for it. However, in cases of gross negligence or injustice in the evaluation process, a court may intervene.

Q: What should I do if I believe my answer sheet was not properly evaluated?
A: First, you should follow the university’s procedures for scrutiny or re-checking of answer sheets, if available. If no action is taken, you can approach the High Court seeking a direction for re-evaluation, but the court will only intervene in rare cases of clear injustice.

Q: Can a High Court order a university to re-evaluate answer sheets even if the university’s rules do not allow for it?
A: Generally, no. The High Court should not order re-evaluation if the university’s rules do not provide for it. However, in exceptional cases of gross negligence or injustice, the court may intervene.

Q: What does the Supreme Court’s judgment mean for universities?
A: Universities should ensure that their evaluation processes are fair and diligent. They should also have clear guidelines for addressing grievances related to evaluation of answer sheets. The judgment also implies that universities should not be negligent in their evaluation process.

Q: What does the Supreme Court’s judgment mean for students?
A: Students should be aware that re-evaluation of answer sheets is not a matter of right. They should focus on preparing well for examinations and follow the university’s procedures for scrutiny if they have any concerns about their marks. However, they can approach the High Court for relief in cases of gross negligence or injustice in the evaluation process.