Assessment Of Descriptive Answers Is Subjective; Courts Should Not Enter That Arena : Supreme Court Disapproves Of HC Ordering Re-Evaluation

The Supreme Court recently disapproved of the course adopted by the Allahabad High Court in ordering re-evaluation of a university exam, as the relevant statute did have a provision for re-evaluation and scrutiny of answer sheets."Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator", the Court observed.The Court also referred to various precedents, including the recent judgment Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs Dr. Yerra Trinadh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 909 which disapproved the practice of High Courts of calling for the answer scripts/sheets to order revaluation.Although the Court did not endorse the course adopted by the High Court, it refrained from interfering with the substantive relief granted to the student, having regard to "peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of the present case".The Court set aside the order passed by the High Court which granted Rs. 1,00,000 as costs to a “Physiology” student who had allegedly failed in his university exams and got awarded higher marks during re-evaluation after coming to Court.A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal moved by the Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra challenging the High Court’s order from 2019 which increased the marks of the respondent student. The respondent student had moved the High Court seeking a re-checking of his answer sheet of Paper-II of the subject “Physiology “through different examiners and to accept the amended result, if marks were increased in re-checking. The Court eventually ordered to increase his marks after noting that three separate examiners had granted him broadly similar marks; much higher than the original marks. This apart, the High Court provided that if any student who had appeared in the examination of the University in the preceding three years were to apply for re-assessment/re-evaluation, it shouldn’t be declined only on the ground that no such procedure was prescribed in the Statute of the University. The High Court also expressed its hope that that the University would take appropriate steps so that such “irresponsible, scrupulous, unmindful and negligent Examiners/Evaluators” are not deployed in future to evaluate answer sheets. Aggrieved, the University appealed before the Top Court. The counsel for the University argued that the procedure as adopted by the High Court and the directions issued would have uncontrollable ramifications, and do not stand in conformity with the requirements of law. The counsel for the respondent supported the High Court’s order while adding that he was required to approach the Court when left with no other option; and the present one had clearly been a case of the examiner failing in his duty to properly evaluate the answer sheet of the writ petitioner.After going through the facts and rival submissions, the Supreme Court expressed that it was not inclined to upset the substantive relief granted to the respondent in the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, it did not feel the same way regarding the High Court’s other observations/directions. On the question of awarding marks for re-evaluation, the Court noted that the Statute governing the examination in question did not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. Further, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. “Therefore, in the ordinary circumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the process as adopted by the High Court could not have been given our imprimatur”, the Court said while highlighting the specific facts of the case. “However, on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, we are refraining from interfering in the substantive part of the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasons that a direct prohibition in the Statute in question has not been shown; the original examiner seems to have totally omitted to award the marks in relation to answer Nos. 2, 5(a) and 5(b); the process of evaluation by other examiners has been adopted and taken forward by the High Court by providing for awarding of average of the marks of the three examiners; and any interference at this length of time might entail serious adverse consequences to the writ petitioner..”But the Supreme Court’s non-interference in the present case shouldn’t be construed as an “endorsement” to the process adopted by the High Court, it clarified. However, the Bench further said that the observations as to the status of teachers in the society and other co-related observations were not required. The Court did not agree with the imposition of costs as well. “Be...

Assessment Of Descriptive Answers Is Subjective; Courts Should Not Enter That Arena : Supreme Court Disapproves Of HC Ordering Re-Evaluation

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rintu Mariam Biju

Assessment Of Descriptive Answers Is Subjective; Courts Should Not Enter That Arena : Supreme Court Disapproves Of HC Ordering Re-Evaluation

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers