Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences against a High Court order directing re-evaluation of answer scripts of students who appeared in post-graduation diploma examinations. The University had introduced digital evaluation approved by its Executive Council. The original writ petitioners sought re-evaluation, and the learned Single Judge, after perusing records, found evaluation not in line with earlier directions and ordered re-evaluation by four fresh examiners as per MCI norms. The Division Bench dismissed the University's appeals. The Supreme Court noted that while notice was issued, it was observed that results based on re-evaluation had been declared and some students had passed and received degrees. The Court framed the issue: whether in absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court could order re-evaluation under Article 226. The University argued that there was no provision for re-evaluation, only scrutiny, and relied on Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Vikesh Kumar Gupta. The students contended that their results should not be disturbed. The Supreme Court held that in absence of a specific rule permitting re-evaluation, no direction for re-evaluation can be issued. The Court set aside the High Court's order but protected the results already declared and degrees awarded, as per the earlier order dated 9.4.2021. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - No Provision for Re-evaluation - The High Court ordered re-evaluation of answer scripts despite absence of any rule permitting re-evaluation. The Supreme Court held that in absence of a specific provision, no direction for re-evaluation can be issued under Article 226. The Court relied on Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan. (Paras 7-9) B) Education Law - Examination - Re-evaluation - No Right - University Rules - The appellant University had no provision for re-evaluation; only scrutiny was allowed. The Supreme Court held that examinees have no right to claim re-evaluation in absence of such provision. The Court noted that digital evaluation was approved by the Executive Council. (Paras 5, 8) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Scope - Re-evaluation - The High Court cannot order re-evaluation merely because it is dissatisfied with evaluation, especially when there is no provision. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order but protected the results already declared. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether, in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation, the High Court was justified in ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing re-evaluation, but protected the results already declared and degrees awarded pursuant to that order. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- No right to re-evaluation in absence of provision
- Re-evaluation cannot be ordered under Article 226 without rule
- Digital evaluation system approved by Executive Council
- Results already declared not to be disturbed
