C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 1 of 21    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 367 OF 2017  

Ran Vijay Singh & Ors.       …Appellants  

Versus  

State  of  U.P. & Ors.                …Respondents  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 355, 354, 356-357, 358 AND 366 OF 2017  

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J   

1. What a mess! This is perhaps the only way to describe the events  

that have transpired in the examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary  

Education Services Selection Board. We have reached the present stage  

of judgment after eight long years of uncertainty for, and three  

evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than 36,000 candidates who  

took the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers way  

back in January 2009. Hopefully today, their travails, as those of the U.P.  

Secondary Education Services Selection Board, will come to a  

satisfactory end.  

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 2 of 21    

2. On 15 th  January, 2009 the U.P. Secondary Education Services  

Selection Board (for short the “Board”) published an advertisement  

inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate  

Teachers in Social Science. The recruitment was to be in accordance with  

the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board  

Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder.  

3. More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held  

pursuant to the advertisement and the result of the written examination  

was declared by the Board on 18 th  June, 2010.  It may be mentioned that  

the written examination was based on multiple choice answers which  

were to be scanned on OMR sheets.  

4. The candidates who qualified in the written examination were  

called for an interview held between 16 th

and 26 th  July, 2010.  Eventually,  

the combined result (written examination and interview) was declared on  

14 th  September, 2010.  According to the appellants, they were successful  

in the written examination as well as in the interview and were amongst  

those who were in the select list for recruitment.  

5. Some candidates who were not successful in the written  

examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High  

Court between 2010 and 2011.  All these writ petitions were dismissed by  

a learned Single Judge.  The reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 3 of 21    

were that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in  

the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act,  

1982 or the Rules framed thereunder.  Reliance was also placed by the  

learned Single Judge for dismissing writ petitions on the decision of this  

Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh  

Thakur 1  in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier  

decisions and held: “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.”  

6. Another batch of writ petitions (having 77 writ petitioners) came to  

be listed before another learned Single Judge of the High Court. The  

subject and issues were the same and the learned Single Judge admitted  

these writ petitions for final hearing notwithstanding the dismissal of  

several similar petitions.  The challenge made by the writ petitioners was  

to seven questions/answers in the written examination which, according  

to them, had incorrect key answers.  The learned Single Judge personally  

examined those seven questions and concluded that:  

(a) The correct answer of question no. 24 in History paper  would be option (1).  

(b) For question no. 25, History paper, option (2) is correct.  

(c) Option (2) is the correct answer of question no. 36 of  

History paper.  

                                                           1  (2010) 6 SCC 759

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 4 of 21    

(d) Option (2) is correct answer in respect to question no. 37  

of History paper.  

(e) Question no. 40 of History paper is wrongly framed.  

(f) In question no. 43, there may be two correct answers, i.e.  

options (1) and (3).  

(g) In question no.32 of Civics Paper, option (3) would be the  

correct answer.  

The learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe:  

“It cannot be doubted that being a selection body for appointment  

of Teachers in Secondary Schools, the Selection Board was under  

a pious as well as statutory obligation to hold selection very  

carefully, meticulously and in the most honest and correct  

manner.  The job of Selection Board could not have been  

completed by mere holding a selection without caring whether  

examination is being conducted correctly and properly, whether  

all the questions have been framed in a proper manner, whether  

the answer(s), if it is multiple choice examination, have been  

given with due care and caution so as to leave no scope of error  

or mistake therein etc.  In fact if such a mistake is committed, it  

causes a multi-edged injury to an otherwise studious, intelligent  

and well conversant student who understand the subject, well  

knows the relevant details and correct answers but suffers due to  

sheer negligence of the examining body.  The obligation of  

examining body cannot be allowed to whittle out in any manner  

for any reason whatsoever.  For the fault of examining body, a  

candidate cannot be made to suffer.”  

7. On this basis, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment and  

order dated 8 th  February, 2012 directing re-examination of the answer  

sheets of these 77 writ petitioners. It was further directed that in case  

these writ petitioners are selected then those at the bottom of the select  

list would automatically have to be pushed out.  

8. In must be recorded that the learned Single Judge did refer to and  

cite several decisions of this Court on the subject or re-evaluation but

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 5 of 21    

unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down. The learned Single  

Judge relied on Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati  

University 2  but failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers under  

consideration in that case were demonstrably wrong and this was not in  

dispute and even the learned counsel appearing for the University did not  

question this fact. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts.    

9. Be that as it may, the issue that remained in Manish Ujwal was of  

the appropriate orders to be passed. While considering this, the following  

cautionary measures were suggested:   

“….it is necessary to note that the University and those who  

prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant  

caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason.  

We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the  

welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the  

merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the  

predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her  

career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a  

result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the  

second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in  

educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility  

on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in  

cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University and  

not in favour of the students.”    

10. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the  

Board preferred Special Appeal No. 442 of 2012 before the Division  

Bench of the High Court. Some candidates also preferred Special Appeals  

directed against the judgment and order dated 8 th

February, 2012. The  

                                                           2  (2005) 13 SCC 744

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 6 of 21    

Special Appeal filed by the Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of  

the High Court on 13 th

March, 2012. In some other Special Appeal filed  

by a candidate, it was stated by the Board on 11 th

April, 2012 that the  

answer sheets of all the candidates would be re-evaluated in the light of  

the judgment of the learned Single Judge.   

11. Following up on this, the judgment and order passed by the learned  

Single Judge was implemented on 10 th  September, 2012 and the re-

evaluated results of the written examination of all candidates were  

declared. As a result of the re-evaluation, it appears that some candidates,  

who were declared successful in the combined result declared on 14 th   

September, 2010 were now declared unsuccessful. The appellants before  

us were not affected by the re-evaluation of the written examination and  

continued in the select list.  

12. Thereafter, a set of petitions was filed including some before this  

Court and eventually it came to pass that those aggrieved by the order  

passed by the Division Bench on 13 th  March, 2012 could file review  

petitions.   

13. On 12 th  May, 2014 the Board published the final select list of  

candidates who had qualified in the written examination as well as in the  

interview.  In this final select list, the appellants did not find a place and,  

therefore, they challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8 th  

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 7 of 21    

February, 2012. According to the appellants the learned Single Judge had  

incorrectly re-evaluated the seven disputed questions and had arrived at  

incorrect answers to these questions.   

14. The Division Bench heard all the review petitions as well as the  

appeals and passed an order dated 28 th

April, 2015 referring the seven  

disputed questions/answers for consideration by a one-man Expert  

Committee.  On or about 18 th

May, 2015 the Expert Committee gave its  

Report to which the appellants filed objections. Eventually, by the  

judgment and order dated 2 nd

November, 2015 the Division Bench  

directed a fresh evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis of the Report  

of the Expert Committee. This decision of the Division Bench is under  

challenge before us.  

15. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the third re-

evaluation was completed by the Board. The result of the third re-

evaluation has been kept in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was initially  

filed before us but later returned to learned counsel for the Board.   

16.   We are pained that an examination for recruitment of Trained  

Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained  

finality even after the passage of more than eight years.  The system of  

holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and  

reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 8 of 21    

could go on for several years.  Be that as it may, we have still to tackle  

the issues before us.   

17. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Uttar  

Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the  

Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re-evaluation of the  

answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have  

undertaken that exercise at all. Reference was made to the following  

passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on the  

subject and held:  

“In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court  

to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself,  

particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit  

of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the  

question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the  

candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent  

1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was  

examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other  

subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable  

to understand as to whether such a course could have been  

adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered  

opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High  

Court.”  

18. A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither  

suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other  

decision of this Court – 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.    

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 9 of 21    

19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta 3  this Court took the 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.” In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly  

demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any  

inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore  

rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in  

entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To  

prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken  

by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing a  

system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions,  

including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) Prompt  

decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be  

assigned to it.      

20. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary  

Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth 4  is perhaps the leading case  

on the subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104 of the  

                                                           3  (1983) 4 SCC 309  

4  (1984) 4 SCC 27

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 10 of 21    

Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards  

Regulations, 1977  which reads:  

“104. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a  

subject.—(1) Any candidate who has appeared at the Higher  

Secondary Certificate examination may apply to the Divisional  

Secretary for verification of marks in any particular subject. The  

verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers  

have been examined and that there has been no mistake in the  

totalling of marks for each question in that subject and  

transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer  

book and whether the supplements attached to the answer book  

mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the  

answer book or supplements shall be done.  

(2) Such an application must be made by the candidate through  

the head of the junior college which presented him for the  

examination, within two weeks of the declaration of the  

examination results and must be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10  

for each subject.  

(3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to revaluation of his  

answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other  

documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most  

confidential.”    

21. The question before this Court was: Whether, under law, a  

candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and  

revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed  

by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary  

Education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that  

there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and  

void.  

22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a  

batch of 39 writ petitions, divided them into two groups: (i) Cases where

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 11 of 21    

a right of inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases where a  

right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer sheets was claimed. With  

regard to the first group, the High Court held the above Regulation 104(3)  

as unreasonable and void and directed the concerned Board to allow  

inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to the second group of cases,   

it was held that the above Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and  

manifestly unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of re-

evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who had applied for it.   

23. In appeal against the decision of the High Court, it was held by this  

Court that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in such  

cases. It was held that: “The principles of natural justice cannot be  

extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to  

such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have  

taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process  

of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the  

evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an  

inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a  

proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.”   

24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held that they were  

not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the rule making power conferred  

by statute. It was then said:   

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 12 of 21    

“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. The Legislature and its delegate are the  

sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be  

pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no  

scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision  

impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity,  

in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the  

regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the  

provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the  

limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating  

factors are shown to exist in the present case…..”.    

It was also noted by this Court that:   

“..the High Court has ignored the cardinal principle that it is not  

within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether  

the purpose of a statute can be served better by adopting any  

policy different from what has been laid down by the Legislature  

or its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable a bye-law  

(assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned  

regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy  

enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court  

in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object  

and purposes of the Act.”    

25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this Court then  

proceeded on the basis of the plain and simple language of the Regulation  

to hold that “The right of verification conferred by clause (1) is subject to  

the limitation contained in the same clause that no revaluation of the  

answer books or supplements shall be done and the further restriction

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 13 of 21    

imposed by clause (3), prohibiting disclosure or inspection of the answer  

books.”  

This Court then concluded the discussion by observing:  

“As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court  

should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to  

what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters  

in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing  

technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day  

working of educational institutions and the departments  

controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a  

pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this  

nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems  

involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the  

consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as  

opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally  

important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any  

decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law  

which would bring about the result of rendering the system  

unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has  

not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while  

deciding the instant case.”    

26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service  

Commission 5  the question under consideration was whether the High  

Court was right in directing re-evaluation of the answer book of a  

candidate in the absence of any provision entitling the candidate to ask  

for re-evaluation.  This Court noted that there was no provision in the  

concerned Rules for re-evaluation but only a provision for scrutiny of the  

answer book “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  

                                                           5  (2004) 6 SCC 714

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 14 of 21    

marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page  

of the answer-book.” This Court reiterated the conclusion in Paritosh  

Bhupeshkumar Sheth that “in the absence of a specific provision  

conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-

evaluated, no such direction can be issued.”  

27. The principle laid down by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar  

Sheth was affirmed in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary  

Education v. Ayan Das 6  and it was reiterated that there must be finality  

attached to the result of a public examination and in the absence of a  

statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted  

and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a rarity.  

Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman,  

Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of Secondary  

Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda 7  and President, Board of Secondary  

Education v. D. Suvankar 8 .  

28. The facts in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo  

Shrivastava 9  are rather interesting. The respondent was a candidate in the  

All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted  

by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short “the CBSE”).  

Soon after the results of the examination were declared, she applied for  

                                                           6  (2007) 8 SCC 242  

7  (2004) 13 SCC 383  

8  (2007) 1 SCC 603  

9  (2014) 14 SCC 523

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 15 of 21    

re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The CBSE declined her request since  

there was no provision for this. She then filed a writ petition in the Patna  

High Court and the learned Single Judge called for her answer sheets and  

on a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers with the model or key  

answers concluded that she deserved an additional two marks. The view  

of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the  

High Court.     

29. In appeal, this Court set aside the decision of the High Court and  

reiterating the view already expressed by this Court from time to time and  

allowing the appeal of the CBSE it was held:  

“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.   

In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-

Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by  

the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of  

answer sheets. Hence, the appellants could not have allowed such  

re-examination or re-evaluation on the representation of  

Respondent 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of   

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 16 of 21    

Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer  

sheets......  

In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor  

the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted  

his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two  

additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise  

of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution  

as these are purely academic matters. .....”  

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose  

to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or  

scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the  

matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court  

should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that  

assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the  

examination authority rather than to the candidate.

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 17 of 21    

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not  

play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an  

answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the  

complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does  

not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed  

or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by  

an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer  

equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since  

mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one  

way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question.     

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court,  

some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the  

Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination  

authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not  

the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged  

examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is  

no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an  

examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities  

put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The  

enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court  

must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the  

examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 18 of 21    

candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the  

examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the  

consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of  

the examinations even after a lapse of eight years.  Apart from the  

examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the  

certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination – whether they have  

passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the  

Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not;  

and whether they will get recruited or not.  This unsatisfactory situation  

does not work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty  

results in confusion being worse confounded.  The overall and larger  

impact of all this is that public interest suffers.   

33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the  

learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the  

correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely  

beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions,  

the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division  

Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the  

learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but  

sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert  

Committee.

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 19 of 21    

34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court (the learned  

Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) ought to have been far more  

circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key  

answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer  

sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this  

scenario, the options before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation  

process and depend on the result declared on 14 th  September, 2010 or to go  

by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not an option.  

Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely  

to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration  

for employment.   

35. Having weighed the options before us, we are of opinion that the  

middle path is perhaps the best path to be taken under the circumstances of  

the case.  The middle path is to declare the third set of results since the  

Board has undertaken a massive exercise under the directions of the High  

Court and yet protect those candidates may now be declared unsuccessful  

but are working as Trained Graduate Teachers a result of the first or the  

second declaration of results.  It is also possible that consequent upon the  

third declaration of results some new candidates might get selected and  

should that happen, they will need to be accommodated since they were  

erroneously not selected on earlier occasions.

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 20 of 21    

36. Learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that in case  

her clients are not selected after the third declaration of results, they will be  

seriously prejudiced having worked as Trained Graduate Teachers for  

several years.  However, with the middle path that we have chosen their  

services will be protected and, therefore, there is no cause for any  

grievance by any of the appellants. Similarly, those who have not been  

selected but unfortunately left out they will be accommodated.     

37. As a result of our discussion and taking into consideration all the  

possibilities that might arise, we issue the following directions:  

(1) The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the  

decision dated 2 nd

November, 2015 of the High Court  

should be declared by the Board within two weeks from  

today.  

(2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate  

Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier  

occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of  

results, should not be removed from service but should be  

allowed to continue.  

(3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained  

Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results)  

should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary  

posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate  

Teachers will not be entitled to any consequential benefits.   

38. Before concluding, we must express our deep anguish with the turn  

of events whereby the learned Single Judge entertained a batch of writ

                C.A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.                                                                                                Page 21 of 21    

petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several  

similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other learned Single  

Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential  

element of judicial discipline. A judge might have a difference of opinion  

with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore  

the contrary view. In the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure  

sanctified by time must be adhered to so that there is demonstrated  

respect for the rule of law.          

39. With the above directions, the appeals and miscellaneous  

applications are disposed of.     

 ...……………………J  

       (Madan B. Lokur)   

                                                                   .…………………....J     

                  (Deepak Gupta)   

New Delhi;  

December 11, 2017