Jharkhand High Court
Ghanshyam Kumar Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3119 of 2018
-----
Ghanshyam Kumar Sah .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
2.The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand
3.The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi ... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to G.P.-II
For the Respondent-JAC: Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate
.........
06/03.01.2024: Petitioner by filing this writ petition has prayed for a direction
upon the respondents especially respondent No.3- Jharkhand Academic
Council, Ranchi to re-evaluate the OMR Sheet of the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has got 74 marks in the
T.E.T. examination and according to the petitioner, as per his evaluation of
the answer-sheet he has secured 79 marks. Thus he prays for re-evaluation.
3. It is well settled that there cannot be re-evaluation of answer-
sheet. In this case the petitioner wants re-evaluation of marks, which is not
permissible in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay
Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 has held
that re-evaluation is not permissible and only on exceptional circumstances
when a material error has been committed there can be a re-evaluation. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the issue and held at para 30 as
under:-
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of
an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority
conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation
or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process
of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a
material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it
has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to
the candidate.
4. In the instant case, admittedly there is no rule, regulation which
provides for re-evaluation. Neither this is an exceptional case.
5. Thus, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find
no merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed.
6. However, if the petitioner feels that there is any error in totalling
of the marks of the answer-sheet, the petitioner may approach the authority
concerned.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
sharma/R.S./
