Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7024 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.10600 OF 2009)

  The Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/ Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. & Ors.     … Appellants

Versus

Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors.                   … Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  is  an  appeal  against  the  judgment  dated  

06.02.2009 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in  

Letters Patent Appeal No.984 of 2008 (for short ‘the LPA’).

3. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  the  respondent  No.1  

appeared in the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance  

Examination,  2007  conducted  by  the  Central  Board  of  

Secondary Education (for short ‘the CBSE’).  She submitted  

a representation dated 07.06.2007 through her advocate to

the CBSE for re-examination and re-totalling of her marks  

in Physics, Chemistry and Biology.  The CBSE informed the  

advocate of respondent No.1 by letter dated 02.07.2007 that  

there  was  no  provision  for  re-checking/re-evaluation  of  

answer sheets of the candidates.  Aggrieved, the respondent  

No.1  and  others  filed  writ  petition,  C.W.J.C.  No.7631  of  

2007,  in  the  Patna  High  Court  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution  for  directing  the  CBSE  to  conduct  a  re-

evaluation of her answer sheets and to re-total the marks  

and publish the result.  The CBSE filed a reply contending  

inter alia that under the examination bye-laws pertaining to  

the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination,  

there was no provision for re-evaluation.  The learned Single  

Judge of the Patna High Court, who heard the writ petition,  

passed orders  directing  the  CBSE to produce  the answer  

sheets of respondent No.1 on the condition that respondent  

No.1 would deposit Rs.25,000/- to prove her bonafide that  

her answer sheets were wrongly evaluated.  The respondent  

No.1 deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- and her answer  

sheets relating to Physics, Chemistry and Biology as well as  

the model answers were produced by the CBSE before the  

2

High  Court.   The  learned  Single  Judge  compared  the  

answers of the respondent no.1 with the model answers and  

held  in  his  order  dated  20.10.2008  that  the  answers  of  

respondent  No.1  to  question  No.3(e)  in  the  Botany paper  

and question No.20(a)-iii in Chemistry were correct but she  

was not given marks for her answers to the two questions.  

The learned Single Judge was of the view that if the answer  

sheets  of  respondent  No.1  were  correctly  evaluated  she  

would have got two more marks.  The learned Single Judge,  

however, held that the seats for the Pre-Medical Course on  

the basis of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance  

Examination, 2007 were already allotted to the successful  

candidates  and  the  successful  candidates  had  completed  

one year study and there was no interim order reserving any  

seat for  respondent No.1 and therefore  no relief  could be  

granted to the respondent No.1 except directing refund of  

the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by her.

4. The  respondent  No.1  then  filed  the  LPA  before  the  

Division Bench of the Patna High Court and contended that  

the  learned  Single  Judge  after  having  held  that  she  was  

entitled to two more marks and also to admission in the  

3

MBBS Course should have directed the appellants to admit  

the  respondent  No.1  in  the  next  academic  session.  The  

appellants,  on  the  other  hand,  submitted  opinions  dated  

10.02.2008 and 15.02.2008 of two experts which had not  

been placed before the learned Single Judge and contended  

that the findings of the learned Single Judge are not correct.  

The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  considered  the  

opinions  of  the  two  experts  and  yet  concurred  with  the  

findings of the learned Single Judge that two of the answers  

of  respondent No.1 had not been correctly  evaluated and  

that  she  was  entitled  to  two  more  marks.   The  Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court  took  note  of  the  fact  that  

respondent  No.1  had  approached  the  Court  within  eight  

days of the publication of the result and held that she was  

not  to  be  blamed  for  the  delay  in  disposing  of  the  writ  

petition  and  hence  relief  should  not  be  denied  to  the  

respondent  No.1  only  on  the  ground of  lapse  time.   The  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  therefore  moulded  the  

relief and directed that respondent No.1 be admitted in the  

MBBS Course in the next academic session 2009-2010.  

4

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is  

now well-settled in a series of decisions of this Court that in  

the absence of any provision in the relevant rules providing  

for  re-examination or  re-evaluation of  answer  sheets  of  a  

candidate in an examination, the Court cannot direct such  

re-examination or re-evaluation.  He relied on the decisions  

of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and  

Higher  Secondary  Education  &  Anr.  v.  Paritosh  

Bhupeshkumar  Sheth  &  Ors.  [(1984)  4  SCC  27],  Pramod  

Kumar  Srivastava v.  Chairman,  Bihar  Public  Service  

Commission,  Patna  &  Ors.  [(2004)  6  SCC  714]  and  

Secretary,  W.B.  Council  of  Higher  Secondary  Education v.  

Ayan & Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 242].  He further submitted that  

the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of  

the Constitution could not substitute its own evaluation of  

the answers of a candidate for that of the examiner and in  

the present case the High Court has exceeded its power of  

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  on  the  other  

hand,  supported  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  Division  

Bench of the High Court and submitted that the respondent  

5

no.1  was  entitled  to  two  additional  marks  for  her  two  

answers  in  Chemistry  and Botany  as  found by  the  High  

Court  in the impugned judgment and if  these two marks  

were  added  to  her  total  marks,  she  was  entitled  to  

admission to the MBBS Course as per her merit in the merit  

list.  He, however, submitted that on account of the interim  

order passed by this Court staying the impugned judgment,  

the  respondent  no.1  was  not  admitted  pursuant  to  the  

impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  but  she  got  

admission in MBBS Course subsequently.

7. We  find  that  a  three-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  in  

Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service  

Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying on  

Maharashtra  State  Board  of  Secondary  and  Higher  

Secondary  Education  &  Anr.  v.  Paritosh  Bhupeshkumar  

Sheth & Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for  

the re-evaluation of answers 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.  Chairman,  Bihar  Public  Service  

Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) was followed by another  

6

three-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Board  of  Secondary  

Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr.  [(2004) 13 SCC  

383]  in  which  the  direction  of  the  High  Court  for  re-

evaluation of answers 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 answers books  

in the rules.

8. 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 answers sheets.  Hence, the appellants could  

not have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation on  

the representation of the respondent no.1 and accordingly  

rejected the representation of  the respondent no.1 for  re-

examination/re-evaluation  of  her  answers  sheets.  The  

respondent no.1, however, approached the High Court and  

the  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  directed  

production  of  answer  sheets  on  the  respondent  no.1  

depositing  a  sum  of  Rs.25,000/-  and  when  the  answer  

7

sheets  were  produced,  the  learned  Single  Judge  himself  

compared  the  answers  of  the  respondent  no.1  with  the  

model  answers  produced  by  the  CBSE and  awarded  two  

marks  for  answers  given  by  the  respondent  no.1  in  the  

Chemistry and Botany, but declined to grant any relief to  

the respondent no.1.  When respondent no.1 filed the LPA  

before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division  

Bench also  examined  the  two answers  of  the  respondent  

no.1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings  

of  the  learned  Single  Judge  that  the  respondent  no.1  

deserved two additional marks for the two answers.  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 the respondent no.1 for the two answers  

in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of  

the  Constitution  as  these  are  purely  academic  matters.  

This Court  in  Maharashtra State  Board of  Secondary and  

Higher  Secondary  Education  &  Anr.  v.  Paritosh  

Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (supra) has observed :

8

“…. 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. …”    

9. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned  

judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the  Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court  and  dismiss  the  writ  petition.  

There shall be no order as to costs.  We are informed that  

the  first  respondent  was  admitted  to  the  MBBS  Course  

subsequently.  If so, her admission in the MBBS Course will  

not be affected.                          

.……………………….J.                                                             (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                             (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, August 17, 2011.   

9