Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others

Full Judgment Text

[2022] 10 S.C.R. 77 77

DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES A
v.
DR. YERRA TRINADH & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8037 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 04, 2022 B
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Re-evaluation of answer
sheets ordered, in absence of such provision in relevant rules – Not
justified – Original writ petitioners appeared in post-graduation
C
diploma course conducted by appellant-University – Digital
evaluation of answer scripts – Writ petitions filed by respective
students praying for re-evaluation – Single Judge ordered re-
evaluation of the answer scripts – Order confirmed by Division
Bench – On appeal, held : In absence of any regulation for re-
evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the D
University Rules, High Court not justified in ordering re-evaluation
of the answer scripts – Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer
sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation in absence of any
specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that
too while exercising powers u/Article 226 is disapproved – Judgments
E
of the Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – However, as
the results of the original writ petitioners after re-evaluation or
appearing in the supplementary examination have been declared,
the same shall not be affected and/or disturbed – Deprecation.
Deprecation – Re-evaluation of answer scripts ordered after
F
perusing the record –– Held: High Court was not at all justified in
calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether
there was a need for re-evaluation or not – As reported, the High
Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether
there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs
re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. G
Judicial Review – Scope of – Re-evaluation of answer sheets
– Held: Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets
of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic
matters are best left to academics – In absence of any provision for
H
77
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.

A re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim
or demand re-evaluation – Sympathy or compassion does not play
any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of
an answer sheet.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public
B Service Commission, Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC
714) : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Vikesh Kumar Gupta
& Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2021) 2
SCC 309 : 2020 (12) JT 202; Ran Vijay Singh v. State
of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017] 12 SCR 95 – relied
C on.

Case Law Reference

[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372 relied on Para 5

D [2017] 12 SCR 95 relied on Para 8.2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8037
of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2019 of the High Court
E of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi in W.A. No. 363 of 2019.

With

Civil Appeal No. 8038 of 2022

F Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Vismai Rao, Korada Pramod Kumar,
Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Advs. for the Appellant.

A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Annam Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra, D. Shiva
Shankar, Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Goli Rama Krishna,
Sumanth Nookala, M. A. Chinnasamy, Saurabh Gupta, Ch. Leela
G
Sarveswar, C. Raghavendren, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ramesh Allanki, Syed
Ahmad Naqvi, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad
Haneef, T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari
Mukherjee, Ms. Niti Richhariya, Advs. for the Respondents.

H
DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. DR. YERRA 79
TRINADH & OTHERS

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amravati in Writ Appeal Nos. 363 & 364 of 2019, by which
the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeals B
and has confirmed the common judgment and order dated 19.09.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 10376/2019 and
9486/2019 ordering/directing the re-evaluation of the answer scripts of
the respective original writ petitioners who appeared in post-graduation
in diploma course in the NTR University of Health Sciences (appellant C
herein), the University has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the original writ petitioners appeared in post-graduation
diploma course conducted by the appellant – University. There was a
digital evaluation of the answer scripts. In the first round of litigation,
certain directions were issued by the learned Single Judge how to evaluate D
the answer scripts. The respective students – original writ petitioners
were not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer scripts and therefore
they 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 after E
perusing the record, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the
evaluation of the answer scripts was not in line with the directions issued
by the learned Single Judge issued in the earlier round of litigation and
that there was no proper evaluation of the answer scripts. By observing
so, the learned Single Judge ordered re-evaluation of the answer scripts
afresh as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh F
examiners. While allowing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge
directed/ordered as under:
“Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed
to get the petitioners’ answer scripts once again evaluation as per
the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners. G
They are also directed to give clear and categorical instructions
to the said new set of examiners to physically put the marks etc.
on the uploaded answer script. The identified Globerana
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad should be directed to teach
the examiner, the manner of evaluating the digital/upload answer
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.

A sheet (if necessary). The corrected sheet must be preserved for
future review and in order to seek whether the examiner has
applied his mind while evaluating the answer scripts or not. The
entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks
from today.”
B 2.2 The common judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge was the subject matter of writ appeals before the Division Bench.
Before the Division Bench, it was specifically contended on behalf of
the appellant – University that as there was no provision for re-evaluation
and therefore in absence of having any such provision, the learned Single
Judge was not justified in ordering re-evaluation. It was submitted that
C though the said plea was specifically taken before the learned Single
Judge, the learned Single Judge did not address on the said objection.
That by the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the writ appeals preferred by the
University. Hence, the present appeals.
D 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while issuing notice
in 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 results
E for the final year PG Degree/Diploma examination pertaining to
respondent Nos.1-23 have already been declared. Some of them
have passed in the re-evaluation and the others have passed in
the subsequent supplementary examination. He submits that the
results announced in respect of respondent Nos. 1-23 shall not be
disturbed in any manner. However, the learned senior counsel
F submits that there is no provision for re-evaluation in spite of which
the High Court has directed re-evaluation of MBBS/PG
Examinations. He further submits that there are a number of
matters 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 dated
9.4.2021, the results declared on the basis of the re-evaluation pursuant
to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirmed by the Division
Bench, shall not be disturbed in any manner. It is reported that not only
H
DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. DR. YERRA 81
TRINADH & OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the results on re-evaluation have been declared, even the respective A
original writ petitioners who were declared passed on re-evaluation are
also issued respective degrees in their favours in PG Degree/Diploma
course. However, as observed in order dated 9.4.2021 that number of
matters are pending in the High Court on the same point, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the University has prayed to consider the issue
B
on merits, namely, “whether, in absence of any provision for re-evaluation,
the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation, while exercising
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”?
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has
vehemently submitted that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation,
the High Court was not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer C
sheets/answer scripts and that too while exercising powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, heavy
reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,
Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 714) (paragraph 7 & 8); and the D
recent 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 to
the order passed by this Court on 17.01.2022, by which the University E
was permitted to file an affidavit giving the details of the digital evaluation
of the answer sheets. It is submitted that the University has introduced
digital evaluation (online evaluation) for the answer scripts of PG Degree/
Diploma Examinations. It is submitted that initially the pilot project was
entrusted to M/s. Globarena Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad which
had scanned the answer sheets for online evaluation and the same were F
evaluated online by the examiners. It is submitted that after satisfying
the pilot project for digital evaluation, the University placed the same in
221st meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.07.2016 and the
Executive Council verified the method of digital evaluation and the
services of the nodal company under the supervision of the University. G
It is submitted that thereafter the resolution was passed by the Executive
Council to go for digital evaluation. It is submitted that in pursuance of
the said resolution, the University has evaluated the answer scripts digitally
for every examination and there is no manual evaluation after the
resolution by the Executive Council for digital evaluation.
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.

A 5.2 It is further submitted that thereafter and after passing the
judgment by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 26929/2016, the University
has taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by the High Court and
improved the system of digital evaluation. It is submitted that subsequently
the present digital evaluation system after improvements and modifications
has been approved by the High Court in the recent decision in Writ
B
Petition No. 15865/2022.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original
writ petitioners have submitted that so far as the original writ petitioners
are concerned, as they are declared pass after re-evaluation and/or
appearing in the supplementary examination and their results have been
C declared and they are awarded degrees, the same may not be disturbed
as observed by this Court in order dated 9.4.2021.
7. The short question which is posed for consideration before this
Court is, “whether in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the
High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation after calling for the
D record of the answer scripts?
8. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, few decisions
of this Court including two, referred to hereinabove, which have been
relied 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 is
observed and held by this Court that in absence of any provision
for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to
claim or demand re-evaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is observed
and held as under:
F
“7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person
and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length.
The main question which arises for consideration is whether
the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation
of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper.
G Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision
wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation
of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only
wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking
whether all the answers given by a candidate have been
examined and whether there has been any mistake in the
H
DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. DR. YERRA 83
TRINADH & OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly A
on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute
that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded
to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence
of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the
relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right
B
whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
This question was examined in considerable detail
in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth
[(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevant
rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an C
application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the
students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed
to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to
conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the
petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held
D
that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied
power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection
and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The
judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that
in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an
examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such E
direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the
relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling
a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a
situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition
was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly
F
erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single
Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates
may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their
answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different
dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission G
will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to
examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The
examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive
examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly
delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.

A What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-
evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks
as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration.
The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many
problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.”
B 8.2 In the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2
SCC 357, in paragraph 32, it is observed and held as under:
“32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is
interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This
C places the examination authorities in an unenviable position
where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.
Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is
no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing
for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the
D examination authorities put in equally great efforts to
successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must
consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put
E in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The present
appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the
examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering
F about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination
— whether they have passed or not; whether their result will
be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will
get admission in a college or university or not; and whether
they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does
G not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty
results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and
larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”
8.3 In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), after considering
catena of decisions on scope of judicial review with regard to re-
H evaluation of the answer sheets, it is observed and held that the
DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES v. DR. YERRA 85
TRINADH & OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a A
candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic
matters are best left to academics.
9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of
the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the B
record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a
need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling
for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for
re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is
wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer
sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of C
any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too
while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
disapproved.
10. Even otherwise, in the present case, the University has adopted
the digital evaluation which has been subsequently modified/improved D
and the deficiencies have been removed, which has now been approved
by the High Court in the recent decision in Writ Petition No. 15865/
2022. The digital evaluation process is reported to be scrupulously
followed by the University. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the
University on use of digital evaluation, it appears that all precautions are E
being taken to have the accurate evaluation digitally. There are specific
instructions and trainings to the examiners while conducting digital
evaluation. It is reported that the faculty has utilised the updated software
by using the tools and annotations incorporated in the software adopted
by the University. In any case, in absence of any regulation for re-
evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the F
University Rules, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation
of the answer scripts. As observed and held by this Court in the case of
Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that sympathy or compassion does not play
any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an
answer sheet. G
11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering
re-evaluation of the answer scripts, confirmed by the Division Bench by
the impugned common judgment and order, is unsustainable. However,
as observed hereinabove, as the results of the original writ petitioners H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.

A after re-evaluation or appearing in the supplementary examination have
been declared, while quashing and setting aside the impugned common
judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as
Division Bench of the High Court, the same shall not be affected and/or
disturbed. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the
learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench ordering re-evaluation
B
of the answer scripts in absence of any such provision in the relevant
rules are hereby quashed and set aside. However, as observed
hereinabove, the same shall not affect the declaration of the results of
the original writ petitioners on re-evaluation or appearing in the
supplementary examination.
C 12. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed. No order as to
costs.

Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)
D

Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others

Ratio Decidendi

Full Judgment Text

Our Analysis