Judicial Examination Dispute: Supreme Court Rules Against Re-Evaluation of Answer Sheets

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Others, delivered an important ruling concerning the re-evaluation of answer sheets in judicial service examinations. The case revolved around a candidate’s plea for the re-evaluation of his answer papers after failing to qualify for an interview for the Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision allowing re-evaluation, reinforcing the principle that re-evaluation is permissible only if explicitly provided in the examination rules.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, was a candidate for the Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service examination conducted by the High Court of Tripura. The examination process included a preliminary exam, a main written examination, and an interview. The relevant advertisement dated January 18, 2011, notified three vacancies.

Mukherjee cleared the preliminary exam held on June 12, 2011, and was among the 17 candidates shortlisted for the main examination, conducted on July 30-31, 2011. However, when the results were declared on September 29, 2011, Mukherjee was declared not qualified, having scored 175 out of 300, which was 5 marks short of the required 60% qualification mark.

After seeking disclosure of his marks under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Mukherjee was allowed to inspect his answer scripts. He claimed that some correct answers had been marked incorrect and subsequently filed a writ petition before the Tripura High Court, demanding re-evaluation.

Legal Issues Considered

Whether the candidate had a legal right to demand re-evaluation in the absence of any specific provision allowing it.
Whether the High Court had the authority to order re-evaluation despite the absence of re-evaluation provisions in the examination rules.
Whether there were any exceptional circumstances justifying the re-evaluation of answer scripts.

High Court’s Ruling

The High Court of Tripura initially dismissed Mukherjee’s writ petition on December 12, 2012. A subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on July 23, 2013. However, years later, Mukherjee filed a review petition, which the High Court allowed on March 19, 2018.

The High Court held:

Though the rules did not explicitly provide for re-evaluation, there was no express prohibition against it.
If there was a patent error—such as marking correct answers as incorrect—courts could order re-evaluation.
It identified four specific questions where incorrect marking may have affected the candidate’s score.
It directed the Registrar General of the Tripura High Court to facilitate the re-evaluation of Mukherjee’s answer sheets for Papers I and II.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The High Court of Tripura appealed the decision before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and set aside the High Court’s order. The key observations of the Supreme Court were:

1. No Right to Re-Evaluation Unless Rules Provide for It

The Supreme Court emphasized that re-evaluation is not a right unless explicitly permitted by the examination rules. Citing Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004), the Court reiterated:

“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.”

2. Review Petition Not Maintainable

The Supreme Court also questioned the maintainability of the review petition. It pointed out:

The original writ petition was dismissed in 2012.
The Supreme Court had already rejected Mukherjee’s SLP in 2013.
The review petition was filed nearly five years later, which was an abuse of process.

3. Exceptional Cases May Justify Re-Evaluation

The Court acknowledged that in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018), it was held that re-evaluation might be permitted in rare and exceptional cases, such as:

Omissions where a candidate is denied marks for a clearly correct answer.
Situations where there is a manifest error without needing interpretation.

However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its authority by ordering re-evaluation.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order allowing re-evaluation.
It reaffirmed that judicial interference in evaluation processes should be minimal.
It directed that examination authorities’ decisions be respected unless there is a clear violation of rules.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Re-Evaluation Not a Right: Courts cannot order re-evaluation unless explicitly permitted by examination rules.
Timely Appeals Are Crucial: Candidates must challenge results within the prescribed time; review petitions after several years may be dismissed.
Judicial Restraint in Examination Matters: Courts must respect the autonomy of examining bodies and should not act as super-examiners.
Limited Scope for Exceptional Cases: Re-evaluation may be permitted only in clear and rare cases of manifest error.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee reinforces the principle that judicial review in examination disputes must be limited. By quashing the High Court’s order, the judgment prevents unnecessary re-evaluations that could disrupt examination processes. This case sets a precedent that courts must respect established rules and procedures, ensuring fairness and stability in recruitment and competitive examinations.

Petitioner Name: High Court of Tripura Through The Registrar General.
Respondent Name: Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Others.
Judgment By: Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Tripura.
Judgment Date: 06-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: High Court of Tripur vs Tirtha Sarathi Mukhe Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category