Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Underlining the limited scope of judicial review with regard to re-evaluation of answer sheets, the Supreme Court reminded again that the courts lack expertise in the subject matter. The Top Court, while renouncing the practice of calling for re-evaluation, opined that "the 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 the present matter, the original petitioners appeared in post-graduation diploma course conducted by the appellant – NTR University of Health Sciences. The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the digitised evaluation of mark sheets.

Initially, certain directions were issued by the Single Judge bench on how to evaluate the answer sheets. Subsequent to this, the still aggrieved students approached again for re-evaluation of their answer scripts, which were evaluated digitally. The Single Judge bench then stated that in accordance with the directions passed earlier, there was no proper evaluation of the answer scripts. Accordingly, the single judge bench ordered for re-evaluation.

When the University approached division bench of the high court, contending that the Single Judge was not justified in ordering re-evaluation, as there was no provision for the same, the appeal was dismissed.

It was vehemently submitted by the appellant-University that the pilot project of digital evaluation was verified by the Executive Council and the services of the nodal company under the supervision of the University.

Therefore now the question before the Top Court was “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”.

Answering it in negation the bench comprising of Justices M.R Shah and M.M Sundresh was of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in calling for answer sheets and ordering re-evaluation, in the absence of a corresponding enabling provision. The bench thus opined, "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 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 University Rules, the High Court is not justified in ordering re-evaluation of the answer scripts".

Accordingly, court held the impugned judgments as unsustainable.

Case Title: Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others