Supreme Court Upholds No Re-evaluation Rule in Tripura Judicial Service Exam: High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 6 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 103

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a court order the re-evaluation of exam papers when the rules of the exam don’t allow it? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The case involved a candidate who was not selected for the Tripura Judicial Service and sought re-evaluation of his answer sheets. The Supreme Court addressed the extent to which High Courts can intervene in such matters, especially when the rules governing the examination do not permit re-evaluation.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion. The court examined the powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in the context of re-evaluation of answer sheets in competitive examinations.

Case Background

In 2011, the High Court of Tripura advertised for the recruitment of Grade-I positions in the Tripura Judicial Service. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee (Respondent No. 1) applied and appeared for the preliminary examination on 12 June 2011, which he cleared. He then appeared for the main examination held on 30 and 31 July 2011, consisting of three papers. The results were declared on 29 September 2011, and Respondent No. 1 was declared not qualified.

Dissatisfied with the result, he sought disclosure of his marks under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and was later allowed to inspect his answer scripts on 1 November 2011. He claimed that some of his correct answers were marked as incorrect. He had secured 175 marks out of 300, falling short of the 60% requirement to qualify for the interview.

Subsequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2012 seeking re-evaluation of his answer papers and a declaration that the decision to disqualify him was void. This petition was dismissed on 12 December 2012. He then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 23 July 2013. Following this, he filed a Review Petition before the High Court, which was allowed, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, which sought re-evaluation of his answer sheets. The High Court dismissed the petition on 12 December 2012. The respondent then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 23 July 2013. Subsequently, the respondent filed a Review Petition before the High Court.

The High Court, in its review, noted that the 2003 Rules governing the examination did not provide for re-evaluation of answer scripts. However, it found no explicit prohibition against re-evaluation if a patent error was found, such as not awarding marks for a correct answer or treating a correct answer as incorrect. The High Court clarified that it was not to act as a super-examiner. The High Court then identified specific questions in Papers I and II that it believed required a relook. The High Court allowed the Review Petition and directed the Registrar General of the Tripura High Court to re-evaluate the answer sheets.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the scope of the High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the context of directing re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules.

The Supreme Court also refers to Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with adjournments. The relevant portion of Order XVII Rule 1 states:

“1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing – (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suits.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the Review Petition was not maintainable as it was filed after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court. They relied on the judgment in K. Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy [2001 (5) SCC 37], which stated that a review petition filed after the dismissal of an SLP is an abuse of the process of law.
• The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the Review Petition, nearly five years after the dismissal of the SLP. They also pointed out that subsequent selections had commenced after the final judgment in the Writ Petition.
• The appellant emphasized that there is no right to seek re-evaluation unless a specific provision allows it. They cited the judgment in Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission [2004 (6) SCC 714], which held that in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation, the court cannot direct it.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the examiner had not awarded marks for correct answers, leading to a grave injustice.
• The respondent relied on the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2018 (2) SCC 357], which stated that re-evaluation could be permitted in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated.
• The respondent personally submitted that he had suffered grave injustice due to clear mistakes in not awarding marks for correct answers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the Review Petition was maintainable, given that it was filed after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets, considering that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order for re-evaluation. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets.

The Court’s view on the authorities:

✓ K. Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy [2001 (5) SCC 37]*: The Court acknowledged the precedent but noted the conflict in judicial opinion and the reference to a larger bench.

✓ Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission [2004 (6) SCC 714]*: The Court reaffirmed this precedent, stating that in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation, the court cannot direct it.

✓ Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2018 (2) SCC 357]*: The Court clarified that while re-evaluation may be permitted in rare cases of material error, the present case did not meet the threshold.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation, courts should not generally direct re-evaluation. The Court emphasized that while it has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this power should be exercised judiciously and in exceptional circumstances. The Court also considered the delay in filing the review petition and the subsequent developments, which weighed against intervention. The Court also noted that the High Court had already considered the issue of Paper III in the original writ petition and that the review petition was not a re-hearing of the matter.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the law and the established precedents. The Court emphasized that the absence of a provision for re-evaluation is a significant factor that limits the Court’s power to intervene. The Court also considered the practical implications of allowing re-evaluation, such as the potential for delays in the examination process.

The Court considered the arguments of the respondent regarding the incorrect evaluation of his answer sheets. However, the Court ultimately concluded that the case did not meet the threshold for intervention, particularly given the delay and subsequent developments. The Court reiterated that the review petition was not a re-hearing of the main matter and that the High Court should not have taken up the plea relating to questions in Part-I and Part-II after the passage of nearly 5 years.

The Court also analyzed the specific questions raised by the High Court. For instance, regarding the question on adjournments under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court noted that the respondent’s answer was technically incorrect based on the provision itself. The Court noted that the interpretation of the provision was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association Case [2005 (6) SCC 344], and the examining body was correct in evaluating the answer on the basis of the provision.

The Court noted that the High Court had, on the one hand, reasoned that what was covered by the judgment in the writ petition was a complaint related to Paper III. Despite this, the direction was given for evaluation of Paper II and Paper III.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The review, it must be noted is not a re-hearing of the main matter. A review would lie only on detection without much debate of an error apparent.”

“In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

“We would defer to the view which the examining body would have taken.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Courts should generally not direct re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of a specific provision for it in the relevant rules.

✓ The power of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, while vast, is not unlimited and should be exercised judiciously.

✓ Re-evaluation may be permitted only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning.

✓ Delay in approaching the court and subsequent developments can be significant factors against intervention.

✓ Review petitions are not a re-hearing of the main matter and are only for correcting an error apparent on the face of the record.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismissed the review petition filed before the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in the absence of a specific provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets, courts should generally not direct such re-evaluation. This judgment reinforces the principle that the absence of a provision for re-evaluation is a significant factor that limits the Court’s power to intervene. The Court clarified that while re-evaluation may be permitted in rare cases of material error, the present case did not meet the threshold. This case reaffirms the position of law that the benefit of doubt should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate and that the Courts should defer to the view of the examining body.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee reinforces the principle that courts should not generally order re-evaluation of answer sheets when the rules of the examination do not permit it. The Court emphasized that while it has the power to intervene, this power must be exercised judiciously and in exceptional circumstances. The judgment also highlights the importance of adhering to established procedures and the need for candidates to seek remedies in a timely manner.