RANCHI, India, Jan. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 18:

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to re-evaluate the answer paper of main examination of the petitioner in respect of paper-I and paper-II (Subject Code 06 and 07) of Combined Assistant Engineer, Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination of 2019, on the ground as per the petitioner that he is entitled for more marks than what he has received. Further, he has prayed that there are several cuttings in the answer sheets made by the examiner while evaluating, which create doubts.

3. Considering the submission made by the petitioner, I had called for the answer-sheets in sealed cover. I find nothing glaring in the answer-sheet in support the submission of the petitioner. There is one question, which was answered by the petitioner in which earlier some marks was granted, but later on it was corrected. There is no malice in the said correction. Further all the answers have been evaluated and number has been assigned for all the answers.

4. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot re-evaluate the answer sheets. Further, the re-evaluation and assigning marks to the answer is domain of the subject experts and this Court cannot interfere with the same.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 at para No.30 has crystalized the principles about of re-evaluation, which is hereunder:-

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. 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;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

6. In view of the facts of this case and the judgment cited above, I find no merit in this writ petition, thus the same is dismissed.

7. The answer-sheet which was sent in the sealed cover be sealed again by the office and handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Though this writ petition should have been dismissed with an exemplary cost, but considering the status of the petitioner, who is unemployed, I am not imposing any cost upon him.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.