DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA versus DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 14-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 471
471
DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA
v.
DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1141 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India :Art. 226 – Exercise of power under –
Order as regards re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts
– Justification of – Writ of Mandamus by respondent No. 1 seeking
re-checking of answer sheet of the paper of the physiology subject
through different examiners and to accept the amended result if
marks were increased in re-checking – High Court allowed the writ
petition by awarding the respondent no. 1, the average of the marks
awarded by the three examiners – High Court further awarded Rs.
1 lakh cost to respondent no. 1, gave liberty to the students who
appeared in preceding three years for applying for re-evaluation,
and also directed that the copy of judgment to be sent to Secretaries
of concerned Departments to ensure that the examiners/evaluators
be deployed in reasonably efficient manner – On appeal, held:
Statute governing the examination does not provide for re-evaluation
and scrutiny of the answer sheets – 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 – Decision of
Court of law ought to remain confined to the issues arising for
determination in the matter – Imposition of costs not in consonance
with subject-matter – Direction to Principal Secretary not of specific
nature and cannot be implemented with certainty – All concluded
matters cannot be re-opened – If the assessment by one examiner/
evaluator is found questionable, all the examiner could not be
presumed to be irresponsible and every result declared by the
University could not be reopened – Substantive relief of award of
average marks to the respondent no. 1 not disturbed and other
directions set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Statute governing the examination in
question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the
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. [Para 13][483-D-E]
1.2 At any rate, in the adjudicatory process dealing with a
prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus with reference to the
grievance of the writ petitioner and the facts emerging on record,
the observations as to the status of teachers in the society and
other co-related observations were not even required. Be that
as it may, even if it is assumed that the High Court was impelled
to make such observations for its anguish in view of the infirmities
referable to the original examiner, imposition of costs in the sum
of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appear
congruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistent
with role of the University. [Para 15][484-B-D]
1.3 Forwarding a copy of the judgment to the Principal
Secretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (Secondary
Education) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in a
reasonably efficient manner’ does not appear to be of giving
specific directions which are capable of implementation with
certainty. In any case, such general expectations of reasonable
efficiency are applicable to every area of activity, whether of an
individual or of the State or of an instrumentality of the State but,
stating such expectations as a part of mandamus of the Court
cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements of
concluding an adjudicatory process with certitude. In other words,
while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would be
expected to issue only such directions which could be executed/
implemented with certainty. The observations of the nature made
by the High Court, which are largely of general expectations, are
difficult to be approved as a mandamus from the writ Court. [Para
16][484-E-G]
1.4 The High Court proceeded to issue directions in the
manner that all the examinations of the appellant-University
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
during the preceding three years are thrown open for re-
assessment or re- evaluation. There is no logic or rationale in
such directions, and is disapproved. When there is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.