Interference of courts in cases of answer sheet re-evaluation is allowed only in exceptional situations: High Court of Delhi

The court can interfere in evaluation of an answer sheet only in cases where there is an exceptional situation shown and to a limited extent. This was decided in the case Of Beem Singh Rawat vs. High Court Of Delhi [W.P. (C) 2784/2021, CM APPL. 9290/2021] by two bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Asha Menon.

The facts of the case are that The petitioner appeared for the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Department) Examination, 2019 and when he didn’t qualify the same, he sought the answer sheet vide RTI application. He points out that the petitioner made a representation, citing five questions that had been erroneously marked wrong. The petitioner required minimum twenty marks in both Part A and Part B to qualify for English Typing Test. Petitioner has admittedly received sixteen out of fifty marks in Part A and thirty four out of fifty marks in Part B. Petitioner needs four more marks to qualify in Part A.  This writ petition was filed for issuance of directions to the respondent i.e. the concerned authorities of court to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner.

For this the court relied upon the holding of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, while discussing the law regarding judicial interference with the results of an examination. It held “the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it.”

In another case being High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663 the Supreme Court has held as under: In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. ……. what the Court has laid down is that the Court may permit re-valuation inter alia only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases on the commission of material error.

Taking into considerations the aforesaid legal scenarios and judgements held therein, the court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the petition.

Click here for full judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *