LexRAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 95 RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 etc.) December 11, 2017 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Service law : Recruitment - Post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science - Written examination and interview held A B - Select list for recruitment - Re-evaluation of answer sheets sought C by unsuccessful candidates - Interference by tlie courts in written examination results, resulting in third evaluation of answer sheets - Held: Courts should interfere in the results of m1 examination in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent - Interference by the Courts places the examination authorities under scrutiny and not the candidates - No doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in prepanng for an examination, even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination - Enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering - On facts, even after lapse of eight years, examination D E for recruitment of the teachers has not attained finality - Single Judge took it upon itself to ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions, which was completely beyond his jurisdiction and the exercise carried out was impermissible - Division Bench erred in sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee - Both the High Courts ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers - Revaluation, cancellation, whichever option is chosen, there would be some candidates who F are likely to suffer and lose their jobs - Thus, under the circumstances G of the case, the middle path is taken, which is to declare the third set of results - Candidates working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the earlier declaration of results, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should be allowed to continue - New candidates selected, consequent upon the third set of results to 95 H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R. . A be accommodated since they were erroneously not selected on earlier occasions. - U.P. Secondary Education Sen1ices Selection Board Act, 1982 - Revaluation of answer books - Issue wlzethe1; under law, a candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and B revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the State Board stating that there shall be no such right, is ultra vires, unreasonable and void - Held: If statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authori~v conducting the examination may permit it and if statute does not c permit re-evaluation, the Court may permit only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error has been committed - Furthe1; the Court should not re-el'Ciluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate since it has no expertise - Court to presume the correctness of the key answers and in case of a doubt, the benefit D should go to tlie examination authority rather than to the candidate - Furthermore, there should be 1w sympathy or compassion in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet. Judicial discipline: Essential facet - Held: Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial E discipline - Judge might have a difference of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view - ln the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The Court is painful over the fact that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and 0 reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years. The courts can interfere in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. The law on revaluation of answer ' sheet is that if a statute, Rule or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.