1. Introduction
It is very easy to understand the plight of a student who has missed the cut-off percentage by a small margin; as it seems near, yet so far; but in some instances where the student requests a revaluation, and is granted it, yet misses the cut-off; or in instances where no revaluation provisions exist, can a Judge order it? This paper aims to discuss exactly that, and the case law surrounding the issue that whether a Court can send an answer sheet for revaluation? The short answer is yes, Courts can send a paper for revaluation, but they are mighty reluctant to do so because it not only opens various practical hurdles for the relevant authorities, but also the Courts do not wish to encourage such litigation. However, there are various instances wherein the Courts have interfered and allowed papers to be sent. This paper shall not only highlight those case laws, but also point out important factual considerations to be considered while drafting such a petition.
2. Law
In dealing with such cases, the historical view that is taken is that the exercise of power should be limited in such instances, to not open a pandora’s box and inspire every discontented student to file a petition asking the Courts to send his paper for revaluation.
The first reason that is given to justify such reluctance is that the Courts cannot take upon itself the task of statutory authorities.[2]And secondly, that such revaluations would give rise to practical problems such as frivolous pleas by candidates; the time-consuming process of the Court; practical problems of the authorities sending copies of individual candidates; declaration of results being delayed; students securing lesser marks in revaluation and thereafter requesting for allotment of pre-revaluated marks; and ultimately such delays requiring the vacancies remaining unfilled.[3]
However, on the other hand, where relief has been granted, the Courts have allowed petitions by awarding grace marks; and allotted few marks to all candidates in view of horridly strict checking. In judgments where the Courts have acted, a singular principle that has evolved over time is the requirement of such an answer sheet being shown to be clearly demonstrated to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation.[4]
Coming to the cases where there were no rules or regulations permitting such revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets, relief was granted in only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.[5]Further, it was also held that the Courts could go into the answer sheet when a grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant.[6] Other examples where relief would be granted were examples of answers being palpably erroneous[7] if for the same answer one gets higher than another[8]; and if the answers were so obviously correct.[9]
3. Takeaway
The first point that this paper aims to make is for all the advocates reading this paper, the following considerations shall help you while drafting a similar petition. While discussing the above mentioned cases, it is clear that the Courts are very reluctant in exercising their discretion under Article 226, however, when it is exercised, such discretion has been merited generally, on the following factual considerations – (i) the number of vacancies in the post; (ii) the number of students passing the exam; (iii) the number of students failing the exam; (iv) whether permitting revaluation would delay the process of postings; (v) whether a public interest would be served in filling up such vacancies; (vi) doubtfulness in the answer key; (vii) two demonstrably correct answers in a multiple-choice question. Therefore, it is advisable that such petitions when filed, must demonstrate the element of necessity, so that the Courts exercise their capacity of judicial review conferred upon them in Article 226 of the Constitution to order revaluation and reassessment of an answer sheet.
And secondly, for academicians reading this paper, consider the aspect that while ascertaining whether, a paper must be sent for revaluation by an expert, a Judge reads the question, reads the answer sheet, reads the answer of the petitioner, and judges whether it is demonstrably correct/incorrect; and in turn applies his mind on the isolated question of whether the answer deserves a revaluation? In such a process, the Court applies its mind to the very question and revaluates the answer itself. Whether or not, it results in an additional mark, is subject to the examiners and experts, but the fact that it has been remitted to an expert committee by the Court is indicative enough that an additional mark or two, is merited. This is important to note as the precedents on judicial review and reluctance in exercising discretion, should ordinarily bind the Court in the maintainability of such a matter, however, such discretion is used by a Judge, in his/her benevolence; or factual considerations; and/or an advocate’s persuasive skills.
Originally published here
[2] HP Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Ors. 2010 6 SCC 759; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543; CPIL v Registrar General High Court of Delhi 2017 11 SCC 456
[3] Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. 2004 6 SCC 714
[4] Kanpur University v. Sameer Gupta 1983 AIR SC 1230
[5] Ranvijay v. State of Uttar Pradesh – 2018 AIR SC 52
[6] High Court of Tripura Through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. 2019 AIR SC 3070
[7] Mahipal Singh v. State of Haryana 2019 2 SCT 436
[8] President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar and another 2007 1 SCT 350
[9] State of Orissa v. Prajanaparamita Samanta 1996 (7) SCC 106; WP No. 15534 of 2008 (Madras High Court); Manish Ujjwal v. Mahrishi Dayana and Saraswati University 2005 13 SCC 744 and Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2018 6 SCALE 639
