SAHITI AND OTHERS versus THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS,

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 22-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1032 
A 
SAHITI AND OTHERS 
t-
v. 
THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. UNIVERSITY 
OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6202 OF 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 22, 2008 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. 
y 
PANCHAL, JJ.] 
c 
N. TR. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986: 
ss. 12(2) and (3) - Power of Vice-Chancellor to order re-
evaluation of answer scripts - MBBS First Year Examination 
;-
September/October 2006 - A large umber of candidates de-
~
clared 'fail' - Complaints regarding improper evaluation and 
D questions being out of syllabus - Vice-Chancellor ordering 
re-verification of answer-scripts of examinees who had applied 
* 
for re-totaling of marks - HELD: Vice Chancellor has power to 
take appropriate action relating to the affairs of University which 
includes conduct of examinations also - He has also emer-
E gency powers to deal with any untoward situation - Division 
Bench of High Court was not right in holding that Vice-Chan-
eel/or had no power I jurisdiction to order re-verification of an-
swer scripts - However, on facts, since Vice-Chancellor had 
exercised the power to order re-verification of answer scripts 
J 
F 
under pressure and coercion from students and their parents 
\ 
and not independently on merits, Division Bench of High Court 
was justified in upholding the decision of Executive Council 
.. 
to cancel the results obtained on re-verification of answer 
scripts and ordering supplementary examination of all candi-
G dates declared as 'fail' in the particular examination - Stat-
utes of N. TR. University of Health Sciences - Clause 1(3). 
Education: 
r 
Re-evaluation of answer-scripts - HELD: Is perfectly le-
H 
1032 
SAHITI & ORS. v. 
THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1033 
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. 
--t 
gal and permissible - If the University authorities are of opin-
A 
I 
ion that re-evaluation is necessary, then Court would be slow 
to substitute its own views and it should show due regard to 
the opinion expressed by the educational authorities, who are 
experts in academic matters, unless the decision contravenes 
any statutory or binding rule or ordinance or is arbitrary, un-
B 
reasonable or mala fide - Administrative Law. 
'( 
The appellants appeared in the first year MBBS Ex-
amination held in September/October 2006 by the respon-
dent University. In the said examination a total number of 
992 students were declared "fail", out of whom 436 ap- c 
plied for re-totalling of their marks. Meanwhile, complaints 
were made on behalf of the students in the name of 
"MBBS First Year Students' Parents' Association" with the 
-< 
allegations that certain papers were not properly evalu-
' 
ated and some questions in a certain paper were out of d 
'j, 
syllabus. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee 
of three expert Professors which undertook re-verifica-
tion of answer-scripts. Consequently, 294 out of 436, who 
had applied for retotalling, were declared "pass". This was 
considered and approved by the Executive Council of the E 
University. Subsequently, complaints were made alleging 
irregularities in the process of re-verification. Ultimately, 
the Executive Council of the University cancelled the 
whole process of re-evaluation and directed all the stu-
dents, who had failed in First Year MBBS Examination held F 
f 
in September/October 2006, to reappear in the supplemen-
"' 
tary examination which was scheduled for April 25, 2007. 
Writ petitions were filed by the students who had 
been declared 'pass' after re-verification. The Single Judge 
of the High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that G 
' ' 
the Vice-Chancellor had power u/s 12(2) of the N.T.R. Uni-
\ 
versity of Health Sciences Act, 1986 to appoint commit-
tee for re-evaluation of answer- scripts of the students 
and, in the absence of any express power conferred on 
the Executive Council it was not justified in cancelling the H 
1034. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A whole process of re-verification. However, the Division 
Bench in the writ appeal upheld the order and direction 
of the Executive Council observing that the Vice-Chan-
cellor had no jurisdiction u/s 12(2) of the Act to order re-
evaluation of the answe.r scripts. Aggrieved, the writ peti-
B tioners filed the instant appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court was 
not right in holding that the Vice-Chancellor of the Uni-
C versity had no power or jurisdiction to 

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