The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh of the apex court in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Versus Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others held that a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the original writ petitioners were appeared in the post-graduation diploma course conducted by the appellant – University. There was a digital evaluation of the answer scripts. The writ petition was filed before the single-judge bench of the high court for re-evaluation of their answer scripts, which were evaluated digitally. The learned Single Judge ordered re-evaluation of the answer scripts afresh as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners. The division judge bench of the high court confirmed the judgment and order passed by the single judge bench of the high court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the university has contended that the in the absence of provision of re-evaluation the high court is not justified in ordering the re- evaluation of the answer sheets/scripts while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It was further submitted that the answer sheets were evaluated online by the examiners.
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment titled Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 714), and the recent decision of this Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 309.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners has submitted that the 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 declared and they are awarded degrees, the same may not be disturbed as observed by this Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
“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”?
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court held that the 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. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of 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. Therefore, the decision passed by the single judge bench and division judge bench of the high court was quashed and set aside.
CASE NAME- Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Versus Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Others
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8037 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
DATE- 04.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
