Case Note & Summary
The intra-court appeal was filed to challenge a writ order concerning the selection process for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). The appellant contended that Question No. 25 in the examination was ambiguous and that both answers 'A' and 'B' could be considered correct, thus warranting the awarding of marks for her chosen answer 'A'. The Writ Court had previously examined the legal position regarding the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in relation to examination processes. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., which established that courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets unless a clear material error is demonstrated. The court reiterated that the correctness of key answers should be presumed, and any doubts should favor the examination authority. The court also noted the adverse consequences of excessive judicial interference in examination results, which could lead to uncertainty for candidates and undermine public interest. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Writ Court's opinion that the matter fell outside the scope of judicial review and that the examination authority's decisions should not be substituted by the court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Judicial Review in Examination Matters - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court held that it cannot substitute the views of domain experts in examination matters and must presume the correctness of key answers unless a glaring mistake is evident. The court emphasized that judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating answer sheets, and interference should be minimal to maintain the integrity of the examination process. Held that the issue raised was beyond the realm of judicial review (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court can interfere with the examination authority's key answers and allow re-evaluation of answer sheets.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Writ Court's decision that the issue was beyond the scope of judicial review and that the examination authority's key answers should be presumed correct.
Law Points
- judicial review
- examination authority
- key answers
- re-evaluation
- ambiguity in questions
