DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES versus DR. YERRA TRINADH & OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 04-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
77
DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
v.
DR. YERRA TRINADH & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8037 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 04, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Re-evaluation of answer
sheets ordered, in absence of such provision in relevant rules – Not
justified – Original writ petitioners appeared in post-graduation
diploma course conducted by appellant-University – Digital
evaluation of answer scripts – Writ petitions filed by respective
students praying for re-evaluation – Single Judge ordered re-
evaluation of the answer scripts – Order confirmed by Division
Bench – On appeal, held : In absence of any regulation for re-
evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the
University Rules, High Court not justified in ordering re-evaluation
of the answer scripts – Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer
sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation in absence of any
specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that
too while exercising powers u/Article 226 is disapproved – Judgments
of the Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside – However, as
the results of the original writ petitioners after re-evaluation or
appearing in the supplementary examination have been declared,
the same shall not be affected and/or disturbed – Deprecation.
Deprecation – Re-evaluation of answer scripts ordered after
perusing the record –– Held: 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.
Judicial Review – Scope of – Re-evaluation of answer sheets
– Held: Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets
of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic
matters are best left to academics – In absence of any provision for
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 77
77
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim
or demand re-evaluation – Sympathy or compassion does not play
any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of
an answer sheet.
Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public
Service Commission, Patna & Others, (2004) 6 SCC
714) : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372; Vikesh Kumar Gupta
& Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (2021) 2
SCC 309 : 2020 (12) JT 202; Ran Vijay Singh v. State
of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017] 12 SCR 95 – relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372
relied on
Para 5
[2017] 12 SCR 95
relied on
Para 8.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8037
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2019 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi in W.A. No. 363 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal No. 8038 of 2022
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Vismai Rao, Korada Pramod Kumar,
Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Advs. for the Appellant.
A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Annam Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra, D. Shiva
Shankar, Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Ms. Ritumbhara Garg, Goli Rama Krishna,
Sumanth Nookala, M. A. Chinnasamy, Saurabh Gupta, Ch. Leela
Sarveswar, C. Raghavendren, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ramesh Allanki, Syed
Ahmad Naqvi, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad
Haneef, T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari
Mukherjee, Ms. Niti Richhariya, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amravati in Writ Appeal Nos. 363 & 364 of 2019, by which
the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeals
and has confirmed the common judgment and order dated 19.09.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 10376/2019 and
9486/2019 ordering/directing the re-evaluation of the answer scripts of
the respective original writ petitioners who appeared in post-graduation
in diploma course in the NTR University of Health Sciences (appellant
herein), the University has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the original writ petitioners appeared in post-graduation
diploma course conducted by the appellant – University. There was a
digital evaluation of the answer scripts. In the first rou

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