AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.—Heard Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Th. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
By this present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief/prayer for re-evaluation/rechecking of his answer scripts by an outside competent University Examiner and also for quashing the marking system.
3.1 According to the petitioner, he is an advocate doing his independent and private practice, in the State of Manipur since 1999, before the Hon''ble High Court and its Subordinate courts. An advertisement was issued by the Registrar, the High Court of Manipur vide its notification dated 15-05-2013 for appointment of one post of District Judge by direct recruitment from the Bar in the Manipur Judicial Service and in response thereto, the petitioner applied for the said post and an Admit Card was issued to him for the written test held from 21st July to 23rd July. The result of the said written test was published in a local daily called "Sangai" (English) dated 23-10-2013 informing that none of the candidates could secure the minimum qualifying marks for recruitment to Grade-I of the Manipur Judicial Service and therefore, their candidature were rejected.
3.2 Being aggrieved by the said Notification dated 23-10-2013 of the High Court, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11-11-2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information/photostat copies of his answer scripts for Papers-I, II and III so as to enable him to know his performance but no information was furnished to him during the statutory period of 30 (thirty) days and accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Registrar, the High Court of Manipur and in reply thereto, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) vide its letter dated 19-12-2013 informed him that the outcome thereof would be conveyed to him after the matter was placed before the Hon''ble Chief Justice who was then on leave. As per the direction of the Hon''ble Chief Justice, on 30-01-2014 photostat copies of his answer scripts were furnished to the petitioner. To his surprise, the petitioner found that his answer scripts were not minutely evaluated by the examiner as per the examination guidelines. According to him, since his answer scripts were not properly checked, his constitutional rights were violated and the actions of the respondents were arbitrary, unfairness, perversity and un-rationalities for which the Registrar General was liable to pay compensation.
3.3 On 11-02-2014, the petitioner submitted an application for re-evaluation of his answer scripts which was turned down by the authorities of the High Court on the ground that there was no provision for re-evaluation in the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 19-02-2014 under the Right to Information Act for furnishing key answers with respect to the Papers-I and II but the fact that no information thereof was furnished to him, had shown that the written examination was held in a random and whimful manner without having key answers. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 28-02-2014 for grant of prior permission for filing a petition against the concerned officers of the High Court and since no reply was given to him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition on their behalf, denying all the averments made therein, wherein it is stated that in the absence of any provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation of answer scripts, no candidate has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his answer scripts and since the writ petition is misconceived and without any merit, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
In order to appreciate the case of the petitioner, the relevant questions in respect of which the petitioners alleged that his answer scripts had not been properly evaluated, the allegations of the petitioner made in the petition in respect thereof and the replies thereto filed on behalf of the respondents are given as under:
"(A) PAPER - I/PART - A:
(a) Question No. 17:
The Ilbert Bill Controversy during Lord Lytton''s time related to the concept of -
Economic justice
Revenue allocation
Judicial equality
Political representation
Note: Correct answer is 3 - Judicial equality and the petitioner''s answer is 2 - Revenue allocation.
Allegation of the petitioner:
The extract are (The Ilbert Bill Controversy during Lord Lytton time related to the concept of choice 1. Economic Justice, 2. Revenue allocation, 3. Judicial Equality, 4. Political Representation. Herein Ilbert Bill was passed in the year 1883 and Lord Lytton ended his tenure as Viceroy of India in the year 1880 during his tenure question of revenue allocation was raised and Ilbert Bill was passed during Lord Ripon Viceroy ship which was related to judicial equality. Relating Ilbert Bill and Lord Lytton makes the question double meaning.
Reply by the respondents:
Option No. 3 is the correct answer. The petitioner himself again admitted in his para 15 that Ilbert Bill was related to Judicial equality. The question asked here is Ilbert Bill controversy and not Lord Lytton''s time controversy.
(b) Question No. 30:
Trees with hardwood and dense canopy are generally found in -
Alpine forests
Evergreen forests
Tribal forests
Deciduous forests
Note: Correct answer is 2 - Evergreen forest and the petitioner''s answer is 4 - Deciduous forest.
Allegation of the petitioner:
With question having double meaning like in Question No. 30 Paper - I, Part (A) - Trees with hardwood and dense canopy are generally found in choice 1. Alpine forests, 2. Evergreen forests, 3. Tribal forests, 4. Deciduous forests. Hardwood is usually found in Deciduous forests as for instance in Burma like Teak and Redwood and accompanying green forest and dense canopy are not hardwood.
Reply by the respondents:
The correct answer is option 2, evergreen forest and not option 4, deciduous forest as averred by the petitioner.
(c) Question No. 48:
The absorption of ink by blotting paper involves -
Viscosity of ink.
Capillary action phenomenon
Diffusion of ink through the blotting.
Siphon action.
Note: Correct answer is 2 - Capillary action phenomenon and the petitioner''s answer is 3 - Diffusion of ink through the blotting.
Allegation of the petitioner:
The absorption of ink by blotting paper involves choices 1. viscosity of ink - the word "viscosity" according to the Oxford Dictionary means Semi-fluid not flowing freely; choice 2. Capillary action phenomenon for which the meaning of Capillary according to the Oxford Dictionary tube or blood vessel; choice 3. Diffusion of ink through the blotting according to the Oxford Dictionary meaning of diffusion means spread widely or thinly, it should be the right choice and choice 4. Siphon action, the Oxford Dictionary meaning of "siphon" means tube shaped like inverted V or U with unequal legs, used for transferring liquid from one container to another by atmospheric pressure.
Reply by the respondents:
The correct answer is option No. 2 and not option No. 3 as wrongly alleged by the petitioner.
Question No. 50:
SEBI, on August 16, 2012 has made it mandatory that all listed companies must have minimum ______ public shareholdings by June 2013.
10%
20%
30%
25%
Note: Correct answer is 4 - 25% and the petitioner''s answer is 3 - 30%.
Allegation of the petitioner:
"SEBI on August 16, 2012 has made in mandatory that all listed companies must have minimum ______ public share holdings by June, 2013", the SEBI in its general notification dated clearly says it is 25% of public holding, the word "is" means fixed not less than, but herein in the question used the word minimum which according to the Oxford Dictionary means least possible so the given choices of this Question 1. 10%, 2. 20%, 3. 30%, 4. 25% herein though 25% is the right answer but since they add the word minimum 25% shall not be the right answer so crossing 25% i.e., 30% should be the right answer.
Reply by the respondents:
As to the allegation made by the petitioner with regard to question No. 50, Paper-I, Part-A, the answering respondents have nothing much to say as the petitioner himself admitted in his averment that option 4, i.e., 25% is the right answer. The Oxford Dictionary meaning may not have much to do in matter pertaining to facts and figures.
(B) PAPER - I/PART - B:
(a) Question No. 1:
Which of these factors is held responsible for the slowing down of the vital organs in old age, as laid down in the passage? (3 marks)
a) Molecular machinery of the master clock and the peripheral clocks in the brain.
b) Master clock in the brain.
c) Weakening of the signals from the master clock in the brain.
d) Arrhythmic oscillations of tissues of old animals.
e) Sleep disorders.
Note: Correct answer is (c) - Weakening of the signals from the master clock in the brain and the petitioner''s answer are (a), (b) & (c).
Allegation of the petitioner:
In Paper-I Part B, Q. No. 1, the petitioner have written correct answer and 3 marks was given by the examiner. However, the examiner again cancelled the mark without assigning any reason or signature in the answer scripts as such it is against the guideline of the examination rules.
Reply by the respondents:
Instead of only writing the correct answer at option (c) for the said question, the petitioner had also written the answer at option (a) and option (b). Initially when the examiner checked the answer scripts of the petitioner, he rightly gave 3 marks for the answer at option (c), which was the correct answer. However, on seeing the two other answers at option at (a) and (b), the examiner cancelled the mark given earlier since only one answer is required. The petitioner cannot have any grievance for the mistake he had committed himself.
(b) Question No. 3:
What was the breakthrough achieved, as a result of the scientist''s effort? (3 marks)
a) The discovery of the fact that the clocks in some peripheral organs were either improperly synchronized or had lost their rhythm completely.
b) The knowledge that the oscillation is necessary to maintain a person''s level of alertness.
c) The observation that the brain uses humeral signals for communication.
d) Both (a) and (b).
e) None of these.
Note: Correct answer is (a) - The discovery of the fact that the clocks in some peripheral organs were either improperly synchronized or had lost their rhythm completely and the petitioner''s answer is (c) - The observation that the brain uses humeral signals for communication.
Allegation of the petitioner:
For Question No. 3 the answer can be found in answer (d) of Question No. 4 since Question No. 4 (d) is correct so, Question No. 3 (c) should be correct, and Question No. 5 of the same part (in the Paper-I, Part-B) option (e) should be the only answer because herein the question says - Which of the following sentences is incorrect, according to the passage? Here the word "sentences" means plural as in Question No. 4 of the same part also used the word "Sentences" meaning more than one sentences, though the singular be verb "is" grammatically a mistake but it must be taken as plural as the evaluator had in Question No. 4 of the same paper make it plural sense i.e., to correct sentences (b) and (d) which is mark correct.
Reply by the respondents:
Option No. (a) is the correct answer and not option (c) as stated by the petitioner. Query raised under question No. 3 and 4 are not connected.
(c) Question No. 5:
Which of the following sentences is incorrect, according to the passage? (3 marks)
a) There is a similarity in the functioning of the brain and the vital organs of the human body with that of a wall full of clocks and the big clock synchronizing them.
b) The molecular machinery of the brain is responsible for the entire malfunctioning occurring at older ages.
c) The study of tissues from the brain and other organs of mice helped scientists discover that even though the suprachiasmatic nucleus maintained time properly, the clocks in the peripheral organs were either out of sync or had lost rhythm entirely.
d) (b) and (c).
e) None of these.
Note: Correct answer is (b) - The molecular machinery of the brain is responsible for the entire malfunctioning occurring at older ages and the petitioner''s answer is (e) - None of these.
Allegation of the petitioner:
In this particular Question No. 5 of the same part and same paper choices (a) and (b) are wrong according to the passage but (c) is correct according to the passage and choice (d) has the combination of (b) a wrong sentence and (c) a correct sentence, hence (e) is should be the correct option according to the nature of the question i.e., noting in the Question No. 5-(sentences); as connected to this Question No. 5 Direction for Questions for Paper-I Part (b) is extracted as "The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question."
Reply by the respondents:
The correct answer is option No. (b) and not option (e) as stated by the petitioner. The word ''sentences'' refer to the sentences given under the various options, it does not refer to plurality of sentences as answer. The word ''is'' is not a grammatical mistake but correct use of verb. The question doe not suffer from any grammatical errors. In any case, grammatical meaning cannot be meant to point to any particular answer. The contention that (e) should be the answer as combination of plural sentences is not in the options is highly untenable considering the nature of the question itself. The question asked is to point out the incorrect sentence from the given sentence, (e) will be the answer only when there are no incorrect sentence given I the options, here the petitioner himself has admitted that (b) is an incorrect sentence.
(d) Question No. 6:
What appears to be true, in the context of new findings? (3 marks)
a) Sufficient information about the bipolar disease is necessary to ward off desynchronization.
b) Age related failure hampers the synchronization of the peripheral clocks in the respective organs.
c) Alzheimer''s disease and sleeping disorders have a similar impact upon the human mind.
d) Only (b) and (c).
e) Only (a) and (b).
Note: Correct answer is (b) - Age related failure hampers the synchronization of the peripheral clocks in the respective organs and the petitioner''s answer is (a) - Sufficient information about the bipolar disease is necessary to ward off desynchronization.
Allegation of the petitioner:
Further Question No. 6 of the same paper and same part the question as extracted - What appears to be true, in the context of new findings? Here in the phrase, "appears to be true" which means wrong but appeared to be true according to the passage, so herein choice (a) is the appears to be true, choice (b) is correct according to the passage, choice (c) is wrong as the dictionary meaning of the word "similar" as contained in choice (c) and the meaning of the dictionary word "associated" in the passage are quite opposite. Further Question No. 7 of the same paper and same part the question read as extracted. "Alterations in the biological clock of ageing mammals are due to"..... herein again the word "Alterations" is plural sense and is followed by be verb "are" so the choice should be two choices i.e., (d) containing both the correct answer i.e., choice (a) and supporting the true choice (c) but choice (b) is wrong according to the passage.
Reply by the respondents:
Option No. (b) is the right answer and not option No. (a) as stated by the petitioner. Again, the petitioner has resorted to an erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the question by resorting to erroneous interpretation of the words ''appears to be''. The words ''appears to be'' by itself does not mean what appears to be true but what is wrong unless it is actually followed by words to that effect e.g., in the sentences "that fruit on the table appears to be an apple", it will be highly absurd to interpret this sentence to mean that the fruit on the table is not an apple. But if we were to say "that fruit on the table appears to be an apple but it is actually a pears", the words ''appears to be ''in the sentence only means impression which is wrong. In question No. 6, the query is merely to find out from the given option, what option appears to be true to the readers from the reading of the passage. And the right answer is option No. (b). The use of the words ''appears to be ''in the sentence means what is true, the choice of using ''appears to be'' can be justified by the nature of the passage as it relates to options and findings of the studies which are not absolute but relative. For the reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any mark for the said question.
(C) PAPER - II/PART - A:
(a) Question No. 24:
A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby he was injured. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages which he let to hire is:
(A) Relevant
(B) Irrelevant
(C) Neither relevant nor irrelevant
(D) Relevant as well as irrelevant.
Note: Correct answer is (B) - irrelevant and the petitioner''s answer is (A) - relevant.
(b) Question No. 25.
If a contract is contained in several letters:
(A) All the letters in which it is contained must be proved.
(B) Any two letters in which it is contained must be proved.
(C) Any one letter in which it is contained must be proved.
(D) No evidence can be led in proof.
Note: Correct answer is (A) - All the letters in which it is contained must be proved and the petitioner''s answer is (C)- Any one letter in which it is contained must be proved.
(c) Question No. 29.
What will be the legal position in respect of a suit instituted after 4 days of the prescribed period of limitation?
(A) If the plaintiff satisfied the Court that he was misled by a judgment of the High Court in computing the period, the Court may condone delay.
(B) If there is compromise between the parties, the Court may pass a decree in terms of compromise.
(C) Suit shall be dismissed.
(D) Plaint shall be returned.
Note: Correct answer is (C) - Suit shall be dismissed and the petitioner''s answer is (A) - If the plaintiff satisfied the Court that he was misled by a judgment of the High Court in computing the period, the Court may condone delay.
Allegation of the petitioner:
In Paper-II also the petitioner have written correct answers for Question Nos. 24, 25 and 29. However no marks were given in these questions also. These are stated with evidence from the relevant sections and parts of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 related to Section 56 for Question No. 24 as for Question No. 25 the relevant answer can be found in Section 9 /explanation to or in illustration of the Indian Evident Act, 1872, as per Question No. 29 it can be found from Section 5 illustration part of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
Reply by the respondents:
The petitioner is not entitled to get any mark for giving wrong answer. The correct answer for question No. 24 is option (b) and the petitioner have not given the correct answer. As for question No. 25, the correct answer is option (a) and not option (c) as was given by the petitioner. In the illustration No. (a) of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is provided that, if a contract be contained in several letters, all the letters in which it is contained must be proved. So far as the question No. 29 is concern, the question is legal position of suit instituted four days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The correct answer is option (c) suit shall be dismissed. The petitioner did not give the correct answer.
(D) PAPER - III/PART - A
(a) Question No. 3:
What is locus standi? Write a short note on Public Interest Litigation.
Allegation by the petitioner:
In Paper-III, Part-A, there must be three choices of answers the petitioner had chosen Question No. 2 i.e., What are the different between Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties? For which the evaluator had allotted 7 marks, Question No. 3. What is locus standi? Write a short note on Public Interest Litigation. For which no mark was allotted as for Question No. 4, extracted as- Why are His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru Vs. State of Kerala, " and Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, " considered landmark judgments? Elaborate. In which the petitioner inadvertently put Question No. 3 again but 6 marks are allotted by the evaluator.
Reply by the respondents:
The answering respondents respectfully submitted that the petitioner himself admitted that he had given answer for question No. 3 and not question No. 4 even though he claim that he had inadvertently put question No. 3 instead of question No. 4. Since the petitioner committed the mistake himself, he is not entitled to get any mark for question No. 4. The mark given was for question No. 3 only and not for question No. 4.
(E) PAPER - III/PART - C
Question: Judgement writing:
Allegation of the petitioner:
In Paper-III Part-C also the petitioner have written very well and however without checking my answer minutely by the examiner and has given 25 marks out of 50 marks abruptly.
Reply by the respondents:
With reference to paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is denied that the petitioner had written very well in Paper-III, of Part-C, which relates to judgment writing. It is subjective and given according to the judicious discretion of the evaluator. The petitioner is given 50% of the total mark. The petitioner is supposed to write a judgment in its proper format as will be highly required for entering the profession. The petitioner has not written judgment in the judgment format with cause title and court name but has merely written it as a commentary."
On perusal and appreciation of the above allegations of the petitioner and the replies thereto given by the respondents, the following facts have emerged:
"a) As regards question No. 17, Paper-I, Part-A, the allegation of the petitioner is that the said question is capable of two meanings for the reason that the Ilbert Bill, though admittedly related to judicial equality, was passed during the time of Lord Ripon and during the time of Lord Lytton, only the question of revenue allocation was raised. Since Lord Lytton is mentioned in the question, his answer is to be treated as correct. In their affidavit, the respondents have stated that the question asked is with regard to the subject matter involved in the Ilbert Bill controversy. The petitioner''s contention appears to be correct to the extent that Ilbert Bill controversy did not arise during the time of Lord Lytton but if one looks at the question carefully, it is clear that the answer to be given is only in respect of the subject matter involved in Ilbert Bill Controversy.
b) Similar is the case with Question No. 30, Paper-I, Part-A. The petitioner''s allegation is that it is capable of two meanings because hardwood is usually found in Deciduous forests eg., teak in Myanmar (Burma) and in other words, this kind of trees with dense canopy is found in central & western China which are part of deciduous forest. But the petitioner has lost sight of the fact that the answer to be given is about the name of the forest in which the hardwood and dense canopy are generally found.
c) As regards the question No. 48, Paper-I, Part-A, it is based on scientific principle but the petitioner appears to have tried to justify his answer only with the help of a Dictionary which is incomplete. His answer needs to be justified by scientific proof. The respondents, in their affidavit, have denied his justification.
d) As regards the question No. 50, Paper-I, Part-A, the petitioner has admitted that 25% is the right answer but he has tried to justify his answer on the ground that since the word ''minimum'' is being used, 30% should be the right answer. It is a matter of notification by SEBI determining the minimum of public shareholdings to be had by the listed companies and it requires no interpretation. From the document annexed in the petition and relied upon by the petitioner himself, it is clear that the answer is 25%.
e) As regards the question No. 1, Paper-I, Part-B, the petitioner''s allegation is that although 3 marks were initially given by the examiner, the same was later cancelled without assigning any reason. In their affidavit, the respondents have stated that initially the examiner gave 3 marks for the answer at option (c) which is the correct answer but on seeing the other answers at option (a) and (b), the examiner cancelled the marks given earlier because only one answer is to be given by the candidate. From the perusal of the question itself, it is clear that only one answer is to be given and the fact that the petitioner gave three answers, entitled him no mark. There is nothing wrong on the part of the examiner. It is the mistake committed by the petitioner that has led to the cancellation of marks given to him.
f) As regards the question No. 3, 5 and 6, Paper-I, Part-B, the petitioner appears to have tried to justify his answers on the grounds narrated in the petition which are completely vague. It is not clear to this court as to what really the petitioner wishes to state justifying his answers.
g) With reference to the question No. 24, 25 and 29, Paper-II, Part-A, the petitioner has stated that his answers are correct in terms of the provisions of certain Sections of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the Indian Evident Act, 1872 and the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. As regards the Question No. 24, it is stated by the petitioner that his answer is correct in terms of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. His contention in respect of Question No. 25 is proved to be wrong from the illustration (a) of Section 91 of the Evidence Act. As regards the Question No. 29, the petitioner appears to have tried to justify his answer relying upon the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But the reading of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that his contention does not seem to be correct at all.
h) As regards the question No. 3, Paper-III, Part-A, the petitioner''s allegation is that no mark was given by the examiner, despite the answer being given by him. According to the respondents, the petitioner has given answers of both the question Nos. 3 & 4 together as against the question No. 3 only. Since the mistake being committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to get any mark for the question No. 4."
It is submitted by Shri I. Lalitkumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in view of the irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts, the petitioner is entitled to re-evaluation of his answer scripts by an expert from an independent University. His contention has been denied by Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that there is no any irregularity which may warrant a re-evaluation of answer scripts. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no provision in the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 for re-evaluation of answer scripts. The short question which arise for consideration by this court is as to whether, having regard to the fact that there is no provision in the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 for re-evaluation of answer scripts, the petitioner is entitled to re-evaluation of his answer scripts in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon many decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, some of which being not relevant as regards the issue involved herein, are not referred to herein. Therefore, it becomes necessary for this court to examine whether the principles laid down in those decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. Firstly, in the case of Kanpur University and Others Vs. Samir Gupta and Others, 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 a process of rationalisation. 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. Secondly, in the case of Subhash Chandra Verma and others, etc. Vs. State of Bihar and others, etc., 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. Thirdly, in the case of Pankaj Sharma Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, wherein the appellants who were not successful in the preliminary examination, challenged it on inter-alia grounds that it was defective in much as there were questions having doubtful answers, wrong answers etc. and the Commission admitted certain errors and accordingly, corrective steps were taken, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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."
Fourthly, in the case of Sahiti and Others Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Others, 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. Fifthly, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, 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. Sixthly, in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Others etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Others etc., 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 cancelled 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. Seventhly, in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, where the issue was whether the decision of the respondent Board in directing re-evaluation of the answer scripts has caused any prejudice to the appellants appointed qua the first merit list, dated 08-04-2008, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"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."
On the other hand, to counter the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in order to support his contentions, Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon some of the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Firstly, in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, wherein the appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court praying for direction to the Commission to re-evaluate his general science paper, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"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 re-evaluation 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."
Secondly, in the case of The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das and Others, wherein the Hon''ble High Court overruled the objection being raised by the Council that there is no provision in the statute for re-examination of answer scripts, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"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."
Thirdly, in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, wherein the respondent filed a writ petition seeking direction for re-evaluation of the paper of Civil Law II which was allowed by the Hon''ble High Court, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"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. ...
... 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."
This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7)
"7. ... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation 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 revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks."
(emphasis added)
A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul-Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation."
Fourthly, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & ors. v. Khusboo Srivastava & ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523 wherein respondents filed writ petitions for directing the CBSC to conduct re-evaluation of her answer sheets which was allowed by the Hon''ble High Court, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:
"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 re-evaluation 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."
Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the said decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, can be broadly categorised into two - first category consists of decisions by which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where the provisions of a law or rules made thereunder bar re-evaluation of answer scripts, the examinees are not entitled to re-evaluation but entitled to only for totalling of marks by checking whether all the answers have been evaluated. One of such decisions is the one rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhay & ors. (Supra) and the principles laid down in such decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Second category consists of decisions by which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has not interfered with the judgment and order passed by the Hon''ble High Court directing the examining body to re-evaluate answer scripts or upholding the re-evaluation of answer scripts done by the University or Council or Examining board on their own and actions being taken accordingly. Most of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are of this type and are rendered confining to the facts of each case and are judgments in persona. The facts of the present case are not similar to that of the said cases and therefore, none of the decisions that fall in the second category will apply to the present case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this court any decision in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as to what are the circumstances under which the re-evaluation of answer scripts can be directed by the Hon''ble court in the absence of any provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation of answer scripts. But only in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & ors. v. Samir Gupta & ors. (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has expressed its 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 a process of rationalisation. 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. On perusal of the facts of the present case, it can easily be inferred that the petitioner has not clearly demonstrated that the key answers are wrong. The petitioner has made endeavour to suggest that some of the questions are capable of two right answers- one as per the key answer and the other given by him by taking the help of a Dictionary and that his answers are also correct. Attempts have also been made by the petitioner to justify his answers by inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation which is impermissible. It is hard to believe that any reasonable body of men well versed in the subject would accept the answers given by the petitioner as correct. It may be noted that the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Verma v. State of Bihar (supra) wherein it has been held that 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 and relied upon by the petitioner, does not help him at all and it can be said to have slightly distinguished from the decision rendered in Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & ors. v. Samir Gupta & ors. (supra) to the further disadvantage of the petitioner and it has completely demolished the case of the petitioner.
Looking at the facts of the present case, the law laid down in a series of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, out of which some have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would apply to it and in other words, the issue involved herein is covered by the said decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as referred to above at para 7 and relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. What the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in those cases is that 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 revaluation of his marks and the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation. In the present case, it is not in dispute that there is no provision in the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 for re-evaluation of answer scripts. In respect of two questions, it is because of the mistake committed by the petitioner himself that no marks could be given by the examiner and no one can be blamed for it. As regards some questions, the petitioner has admitted that the key answers are correct but his contention is that the answers given by him are also correct for the reason that they are capable of two meanings which is not acceptable to this court. As regards the last question which is subjective and not objective one, the petitioner has not given his answer as per the instructions given for the examination but the examiner has given him 50% marks which can be said to be quite reasonable for him. Considering the rival contentions of the counsels appearing for the parties and the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that the petitioner has no good case on facts also and accordingly, his writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above observations and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present writ petition fails both in law and on facts and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.