Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7024 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.10600 OF 2009)
The Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/
Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors. ... Respondents
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment dated
06.02.2009 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No.984 of 2008 (for short `the LPA').
3. The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.1
appeared in the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance
Examination, 2007 conducted by the Central Board of
Secondary Education (for short `the CBSE'). She submitted
a representation dated 07.06.2007 through her advocate to
2
the CBSE for re-examination and re-totalling of her marks
in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The CBSE informed the
advocate of respondent No.1 by letter dated 02.07.2007 that
there was no provision for re-checking/re-evaluation of
answer sheets of the candidates. Aggrieved, the respondent
No.1 and others filed writ petition, C.W.J.C. No.7631 of
2007, in the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution for directing the CBSE to conduct a re-
evaluation of her answer sheets and to re-total the marks
and publish the result. The CBSE filed a reply contending
inter alia that under the examination bye-laws pertaining to
the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination,
there was no provision for re-evaluation. The learned Single
Judge of the Patna High Court, who heard the writ petition,
passed orders directing the CBSE to produce the answer
sheets of respondent No.1 on the condition that respondent
No.1 would deposit Rs.25,000/- to prove her bonafide that
her answer sheets were wrongly evaluated. The respondent
No.1 deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- and her answer
sheets relating to Physics, Chemistry and Biology as well as
the model answers were produced by the CBSE before the
3
High Court. The learned Single Judge compared the
answers of the respondent no.1 with the model answers and
held in his order dated 20.10.2008 that the answers of
respondent No.1 to question No.3(e) in the Botany paper
and question No.20(a)-iii in Chemistry were correct but she
was not given marks for her answers to the two questions.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that if the answer
sheets of respondent No.1 were correctly evaluated she
would have got two more marks. The learned Single Judge,
however, held that the seats for the Pre-Medical Course on
the basis of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance
Examination, 2007 were already allotted to the successful
candidates and the successful candidates had completed
one year study and there was no interim order reserving any
seat for respondent No.1 and therefore no relief could be
granted to the respondent No.1 except directing refund of
the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by her.
4. The respondent No.1 then filed the LPA before the
Division Bench of the Patna High Court and contended that
the learned Single Judge after having held that she was
entitled to two more marks and also to admission in the
4
MBBS Course should have directed the appellants to admit
the respondent No.1 in the next academic session. The
appellants, on the other hand, submitted opinions dated
10.02.2008 and 15.02.2008 of two experts which had not
been placed before the learned Single Judge and contended
that the findings of the learned Single Judge are not correct.
The Division Bench of the High Court considered the
opinions of the two experts and yet concurred with the
findings of the learned Single Judge that two of the answers
of respondent No.1 had not been correctly evaluated and
that she was entitled to two more marks. The Division
Bench of the High Court took note of the fact that
respondent No.1 had approached the Court within eight
days of the publication of the result and held that she was
not to be blamed for the delay in disposing of the writ
petition and hence relief should not be denied to the
respondent No.1 only on the ground of lapse time. The
Division Bench of the High Court therefore moulded the
relief and directed that respondent No.1 be admitted in the
MBBS Course in the next academic session 2009-2010.
5
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is
now well-settled in a series of decisions of this Court that in
the absence of any provision in the relevant rules providing
for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer sheets of a
candidate in an examination, the Court cannot direct such
re-examination or re-evaluation. He relied on the decisions
of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 27], Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 714] and
Secretary, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v.
Ayan & Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 242]. He further submitted that
the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of
the Constitution could not substitute its own evaluation of
the answers of a candidate for that of the examiner and in
the present case the High Court has exceeded its power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, supported the impugned judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court and submitted that the respondent
6
no.1 was entitled to two additional marks for her two
answers in Chemistry and Botany as found by the High
Court in the impugned judgment and if these two marks
were added to her total marks, she was entitled to
admission to the MBBS Course as per her merit in the merit
list. He, however, submitted that on account of the interim
order passed by this Court staying the impugned judgment,
the respondent no.1 was not admitted pursuant to the
impugned judgment of the High Court, but she got
admission in MBBS Course subsequently.
7. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying on
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth & Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for
the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask
for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) was followed by another
7
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary
Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. [(2004) 13 SCC
383] in which the direction of the High Court for re-
evaluation of answers books of all the examinees securing
90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law
because the regulations of the Board of Secondary
Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did
not make any provision for re-evaluation of answers books
in the rules.
8. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-
Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted
by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-
evaluation of answers sheets. Hence, the appellants could
not have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation on
the representation of the respondent no.1 and accordingly
rejected the representation of the respondent no.1 for re-
examination/re-evaluation of her answers sheets. The
respondent no.1, however, approached the High Court and
the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed
production of answer sheets on the respondent no.1
depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- and when the answer
8
sheets were produced, the learned Single Judge himself
compared the answers of the respondent no.1 with the
model answers produced by the CBSE and awarded two
marks for answers given by the respondent no.1 in the
Chemistry and Botany, but declined to grant any relief to
the respondent no.1. When respondent no.1 filed the LPA
before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division
Bench also examined the two answers of the respondent
no.1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings
of the learned Single Judge that the respondent no.1
deserved two additional marks for the two answers. In our
considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor
the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted
his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two
additional marks to the respondent no.1 for the two answers
in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution as these are purely academic matters.
This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (supra) has observed :
9
".... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this
Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to
substitute its own views as to what is wise,
prudent and proper in relation to academic
matters in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing technical expertise
and rich experience of actual day-to-day working
of educational institutions and the departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the
Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic
approach to the problems of this nature, isolated
from the actual realities and grass root problems
involved in the working of the system and
unmindful of the consequences which would
emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to
a pragmatic one were to be propounded. ..."
9. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition.
There shall be no order as to costs. We are informed that
the first respondent was admitted to the MBBS Course
subsequently. If so, her admission in the MBBS Course will
not be affected.
.............................J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
.............................J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
New Delhi,
August 17, 2011.
