Legal Perspectives on Re-Evaluation of Answer Sheets – Key Judgments

Introduction: The question regarding the ability of a court to mandate the re-evaluation of examination papers in the absence of a specific statutory provision is a matter of great legal significance. The Supreme Court of India has consistently maintained that re-evaluation of examination papers is not a right that candidates can demand unless there is an explicit provision in the relevant rules or statutes. The jurisprudence pertaining to the re-evaluation of answer scripts in India is marked by a strong reluctance to interfere in the absence of statutory provisions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made exceptions in situations where there are clear errors in evaluation or when statutory rights, such as those enshrined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act, are implicated. Together, these judgments underscore the importance of maintaining a balanced approach that respects the autonomy of educational institutions while ensuring fairness and accuracy in the evaluation process.

CASE LAW COMPILATION

This compilation presents a curated list of landmark cases adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India;

1. Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission
   • Citation: (2004) 6 SCC 714
   • Legal Principle: Candidates do not have the right to demand re-evaluation of their answer sheets in the absence of a specific provision in the Commission’s rules.
   • Important Paragraph Number: 7
     • “7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re – evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re – evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re – evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for reevaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re – evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re – evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re – evaluated , no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re – evaluated . In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re – evaluated .”
2. WB Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das & ors.
   • Citation: (2007) 8 SCC 242
   • Legal Principle: Courts cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts in the absence of a statutory provision.
   • Important Paragraph Number: 9
     • “9. The permissibility of reassessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth. It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts.”
3. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & anr.
   • Citation: (2010) 6 SCC 759
   • Legal Principle: Revaluation of answer books is not permissible if not provided for in the rules or regulations.
   • Important Paragraph Number: 24
     • “24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16).
       “14. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. ”
       16. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.”
4. Central Board of Secondary Education & ors. v. Khusboo Srivastava & ors.
   • Citation: (2014) 14 SCC 523
   • Legal Principle: Absence of provisions for reevaluation in the relevant rules prohibits candidates from claiming the right to reevaluation.
   • Important Paragraph Number: 9
     • 9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that in the absence of any provision for the reevaluation of answer 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. Bihar Public Service Commission was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda in which the direction of the High Court for re – evaluation of answer 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 answer books in the rules.”

Exceptions to the rule

1. Mistake in totaling: In certain cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the provisions of a law or rules made thereunder prohibit the re-evaluation of answer scripts, examinees are not entitled to seek re-evaluation. Instead, they are only entitled to have their marks totaled. The purpose of totaling is to ensure that all the answers have been duly evaluated and that there has been no oversight in the marking process. It is an opportunity for candidates to verify that their answer scripts have been assessed comprehensively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhay & ors. reaffirms this principle.
2. Wrong answer key: However, there are instances where the impermissibility of re-evaluation has been reconsidered. One such scenario is when there has been an erroneous evaluation due to the usage of a wrong answer key. In these situations, if it can be established that the answers have been incorrectly evaluated due to the use of the wrong answer key, the courts have recognized that re-evaluation may be warranted. The case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. sheds light on this exception and acknowledges that in such circumstances, the re-evaluation of answer scripts becomes a valid course of action.
3. Marks not awarded: Another circumstance that arises during the evaluation process is when an answered question is marked as correct but does not receive any marks. In this case, the issue is not re-evaluation but rather the completion of the evaluation. When no marks are awarded for a correctly answered question, it raises concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the evaluation. Therefore, addressing this situation involves rectifying the omission and awarding the appropriate marks to ensure a fair assessment.

1. Pankaj Sharma & ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & ors.
   * Citation: (2008) 4 SCC 273
   * Important Paragraph Number: 52
   * Legal Principle: Corrective steps taken by examination authorities in response to identified errors are reasonable and permissible.
   • “52. In the present case, certain corrective steps were taken by the Commission suo motu on the basis of expert opinions. Again, when the High Court felt that some more actions were required and issued certain directions, the Commission accepted the order passed and directions issued by the learned Single Judge and did not challenge it. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the Commission cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational. In fact, in such a situation, appropriate remedial measures can always be taken by a court of law.”
2. Central Board of Secondary Education & anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhay & ors.
   • Citation: (2011) 8 SCC 497
   • Legal Principle: Reevaluation of answer sheets is not a relief available under the Right to Information Act.
     • Wherein the question whether the respondent examinee was entitled to inspection and re – evaluation of his answer scripts under the RTI Act arose, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books subject to the clarification regarding the scope of the RTI Act, safeguards and conditions and also held that re – evaluation of answer sheets is not a relief available under RTI Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if an examination is governed only by the rules and regulations of the examining body which bar inspection, disclosure or re – evaluation , the examinee will be entitled only for re-totalling by checking whether all the answers have been evaluated and further checking whether there is no mistake in totalling of marks for each question and marks have been transferred correctly to the title page. The position may however be different, if there is a superior statutory right entitling the examinee, as a citizen to seek access to the answer books as information.
3. Rajesh Kumar & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors.
   • Citation: (2013) 4 SCC 690
   • Legal Principle: Departure from the general prohibition of reevaluation is permissible in cases of erroneous evaluation using a wrong answer key.
     • Wherein the learned Single Judge, based on the reports of two experts that some questions were found to be wrong and while deciding one of the questions whether the “model answer key” was correct, held that the entire examination was liable to be canceled which was modified by the Division Bench partly allowing the appeal with the declaration that entire examination need not be cancelled and only defects be rectified, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the model answer key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective, the result prepared on the basis of the same could be no different. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.
4. Vikash Pratap Singh & ors. v. State of Chhatishgarh & ors.
   • Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 494
   • Important Paragraph Number: 18
   • Legal Principle: Examination boards can decide upon reevaluation in the absence of specific provisions if irregularities in the evaluation process are identified.
     • “18. In respect of the respondent Board’s propriety in taking the decision of re – evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of experts and is empowered to decide upon re – evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Sahiti v. Dr N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re – evaluation . The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re – evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re – evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.”
5. Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & ors. v. Samir Gupta & ors.
   • Citation: (1983) 4 SCC 309
   • Legal Principle: The correctness of key answers must be clearly demonstrated and cannot be inferred through reasoning.
     • Wherein the respondents whose names did not figure in the list of successful candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad, contending that the answers ticked by them were correct and the key answers were wrong, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed therein a clear and categorical view that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.
6. Subhash Chandra Verma & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors.
   • Citation: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 325
   • Legal Principle: In objective tests, even if there are multiple correct answers, candidates must select the most appropriate one.
     • Wherein the screening test held by BPSC came to be challenged by some candidates who could not be declared successful, on the inter-alia ground that the questions asked in the screening test were vague and had more than one answers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in an objective type of test, more than one answer are given. The candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. The questions and answers were prescribed by the experts in the field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers, in any event, this is a difficulty felt by all the candidates.
7. Sahiti & ors. v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences & ors.
   • Citation: (2009) 1 SCC 599
   • Legal Principle: The Vice-Chancellor has the authority to appoint a committee to re-verify answer scripts in certain circumstances.
     • Wherein the question whether the Vice-Chancellor had power to appoint Committee for re-verification of the answer scripts of the students arose, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power and observed that the award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re–evaluation is not permissible under the statutes at the instances of the candidates, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, re–evaluation may be found necessary.

Key Takeaways and Legal Principles:

1. Autonomy of Examination Bodies: The Supreme Court consistently upholds the autonomy of examination bodies in determining their evaluation criteria and processes, as long as they don’t conflict with statutory provisions.
2. Limited Judicial Intervention: These cases illustrate a clear judicial stance favoring minimal intervention in the examination processes unless there is a violation of statutory or fundamental rights.
3. Specificity in Rules: The absence of specific provisions for re-evaluation in the rules of examination bodies is a crucial factor that courts consider before denying requests for re-evaluation.
4. Recognition of Exceptions: While generally disfavoring re-evaluation, the courts do recognize exceptions like errors in totaling, incorrect answer keys, or unawarded marks for correct answers.
5. Role of Statutory Rights: The courts also consider superior statutory rights, like those under the RTI Act, in determining the permissibility of accessing and re-evaluating answer sheets.

Implications for Students and Educational Institutions:

• For Students: These judgments underscore the importance for students to be aware of the specific rules and regulations of their examination bodies. They also highlight the limited scope of legal recourse in matters of re-evaluation.
• For Educational Institutions: These cases serve as a reminder for educational institutions to ensure transparency and accuracy in their evaluation processes. They also emphasize the need for clear rules regarding the evaluation and re-evaluation of answer sheets.

The Supreme Court’s approach in India reflects a broader understanding of the education context. Keeping the examination process fair and maintaining integrity is very important. The Court values both addressing genuine grievances and respecting the decision-making power of educational institutions. The Supreme Court’s judgments provide clear guidelines with room for exceptions in specific cases. It is crucial for students, educators, and legal professionals to understand these nuances when navigating India’s educational system.

—————————————————
Deven Khanna,
Advocate,
Direct (M): + 91 – 7018469792  
Office: +91 – 0177 – 2674760