DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRAversusDEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS.

                          [2023] 2 S.C.R. 471                            471


            DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA                             A
                                  v.
                DEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1141 of 2023)
                       FEBRUARY 14, 2023                                 B
   [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
       Constitution of India :Art. 226 – Exercise of power under –
Order as regards re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts
– Justification of – Writ of Mandamus by respondent No. 1 seeking        C
re-checking of answer sheet of the paper of the physiology subject
through different examiners and to accept the amended result if
marks were increased in re-checking – High Court allowed the writ
petition by awarding the respondent no. 1, the average of the marks
awarded by the three examiners – High Court further awarded Rs.
                                                                         D
1 lakh cost to respondent no. 1, gave liberty to the students who
appeared in preceding three years for applying for re-evaluation,
and also directed that the copy of judgment to be sent to Secretaries
of concerned Departments to ensure that the examiners/evaluators
be deployed in reasonably efficient manner – On appeal, held:
Statute governing the examination does not provide for re-evaluation     E
and scrutiny of the answer sheets – Award of marks in the descriptive
type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment
and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment,
which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator – Decision of
Court of law ought to remain confined to the issues arising for          F
determination in the matter – Imposition of costs not in consonance
with subject-matter – Direction to Principal Secretary not of specific
nature and cannot be implemented with certainty – All concluded
matters cannot be re-opened – If the assessment by one examiner/
evaluator is found questionable, all the examiner could not be           G
presumed to be irresponsible and every result declared by the
University could not be reopened – Substantive relief of award of
average marks to the respondent no. 1 not disturbed and other
directions set aside.
                                                                         H
                                 471
472            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 The Statute governing the examination in
      question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the
      answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive
      type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective
B     assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena
      of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/
      evaluator. [Para 13][483-D-E]
             1.2 At any rate, in the adjudicatory process dealing with a
      prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus with reference to the
C     grievance of the writ petitioner and the facts emerging on record,
      the observations as to the status of teachers in the society and
      other co-related observations were not even required. Be that
      as it may, even if it is assumed that the High Court was impelled
      to make such observations for its anguish in view of the infirmities
      referable to the original examiner, imposition of costs in the sum
D     of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appear
      congruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistent
      with role of the University. [Para 15][484-B-D]
             1.3 Forwarding a copy of the judgment to the Principal
      Secretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (Secondary
E     Education) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in a
      reasonably efficient manner’ does not appear to be of giving
      specific directions which are capable of implementation with
      certainty. In any case, such general expectations of reasonable
      efficiency are applicable to every area of activity, whether of an
F     individual or of the State or of an instrumentality of the State but,
      stating such expectations as a part of mandamus of the Court
      cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirements of
      concluding an adjudicatory process with certitude. In other words,
      while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would be
      expected to issue only such directions which could be executed/
G     implemented with certainty. The observations of the nature made
      by the High Court, which are largely of general expectations, are
      difficult to be approved as a mandamus from the writ Court. [Para
      16][484-E-G]
          1.4 The High Court proceeded to issue directions in the
H     manner that all the examinations of the appellant-University
DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                          473
                 GUPTA & ORS.

during the preceding three years are thrown open for re-                  A
assessment or re- evaluation. There is no logic or rationale in
such directions, and is disapproved. When there is no provision
for re- evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of any
writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to
issuing directions for doing something which is not provided for
                                                                          B
by law. [Para 17, 17.2][484-G-H; 485-F]
       1.5 In a Court of law, when a particular litigation in reference
to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily, the
decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for
determination in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction
is considered appropriate, the same could be granted or issued            C
by the Court only in direct correlation with the facts and
circumstances of the case and not beyond. Moreover, for one
particular fault of one individual in one particular matter, all the
concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re- opened. If the
assessment by one examiner/evaluator has been found                       D
questionable by the High Court, neither all the examiners could
be presumed to be irresponsible nor every result declared by
the University could be re-opened. [Para 17.1][485-B-C]
      1.6 Even if the Court is to express its dissatisfaction as
regards any particular state of affairs, the circumspection requisite     E
of the Court even as regards the expressions cannot be forsaken;
and the relief to be granted in a given case ought to remain
confined to the subject-matter of litigation before the Court. It
gets perforce reiterated that one particular fault or infirmity at
one particular level, when being appropriately dealt with by the
Court, cannot be generalised and all other similar processes in           F
any institution or by the person concerned cannot be presumed
to be suffering from illegalities or infirmities. The High Court in
the present case, while expressing its dissatisfaction, and
presumably to provide for a cleansing process, has inexplicably
travelled far beyond the issues at hand and has issued untenable          G
directions apart from making unnecessary observations. All this
was avoidable; and ought to have been avoided. [Para 18][485-
G-H; 486-A-B]
     1.7 While not disturbing the directions and mandate in
paragraph 29 of the order impugned as also the expressions of             H
474                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     hope and trust in paragraph 31 of the order impugned, the
      directions contained in paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the order
      impugned cannot be approved and are set aside. [Para 19][486-
      C-D]
                Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
B               Mukesh Thakur and Another (2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010]
                7 SCR 189; Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State of
                Uttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357 : [2017]
                12 SCR 95; Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v.
                Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520
                – referred to.
C
                                     Case Law Reference
      [2010] 7 SCR 189                          referred to          Para 9
      [2017] 12 SCR 95                          referred to          Para 9
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1141 of
D     2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2019 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No.871 of 2019.
            Ms. Astha Sharma, Ravinder Singh, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms.
E     Raveesha Gupta, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas
      Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
           Ardhendumauli Kr. Prasad, AAG, Syed Mehdi Imam, Atif
      Suhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Tabrez Ahmad, Omar Siddiqui, Vishnu
      Shankar Jain, Ms. Marbiang N. Khanwir, Ashish Madaan, Advs. for the
F     Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
                1. Leave granted.
G
            2. Having regard to a short point involved, we have heard learned
      counsel for the contesting parties finally at this stage itself.
            3. The appellant–Dr. B R Ambedkar University, Agra 1 has
      preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
      1
          Hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant-University’.
H
    DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                           475
           GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

21.05.2019, as passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature        A
at Allahabad in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 871 of 2019, whereby the High
Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 12, seeking
issuance of a writ of mandamus for re-checking of his answer sheet of
Paper-II of the subject Physiology through different examiners and to
accept the amended result, if marks were increased in re-checking.
                                                                               B
        3.1. While dealing with the writ petition aforesaid, the High Court,
after taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, got
the answer sheet in question re-evaluated from three different examiners
and, after noticing that the re-evaluated marks awarded by three different
examiners were broadly similar but were much higher than the original
marks, ordered that average of the marks so awarded by the three               C
examiners be awarded to the writ petitioner in relation to the said Paper-
II of Physiology. Not only this, the High Court further proceeded to
award costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioner with liberty to
the appellant-University to recover the amount from the examiner
concerned, after such inquiry as provided in law. Yet further, the High        D
Court provided that if any student who had appeared in the examination
of the University in the preceding three years were to apply for re-
assessment/re-evaluation, the same be not declined only on the ground
that no such procedure was prescribed in the Statute of the University.
The High Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded
to the Secretaries of Higher Education and Secondary Education                 E
Departments to look into the matter and to ensure that evaluators were
deployed ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’.
        4. With reference to the subject-matter of the writ petition, the
nature of order passed by the High Court and challenge thereto in the
present appeal, we may take note of the relevant background aspects, in        F
brief, as follows:
       4.1. The writ petitioner of this case (respondent No. 1 herein),
being a student of M.B.B.S. Course at S.N. Medical College, Agra,
affiliated to the appellant-University, appeared in M.B.B.S. (1 st
Professional) Examination held in the month of December, 2018. In the          G
result of the said examination, the writ petitioner was declared as failed
even after securing 344 marks out 600 for the reason that in Paper-II of
Physiology, he got only 6 marks out of 50.
2
    Hereinafter referred to as ‘the writ petitioner’.
                                                                               H
476            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           4.2. Dissatisfied with the marks so awarded, the writ petitioner
      obtained a copy of the answer sheet of the said Paper-II of Physiology
      and also applied for scrutiny of marks and re-checking of answer sheet.
      When no action was taken by the appellant-University for scrutiny or
      re-checking, the writ petitioner approached the High Court, seeking the
      following reliefs:-
B
                   “A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
            get the answer sheet of the Petitioner be rechecked through
            different examiner so that a proper checking of the answer-sheet
            of the Petitioner for Paper-II subject Physiology for M.B.B.S.
            (1st- Prof) Examination 2018 is done and it is further prayed that
C           this Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to direct the Respondents
            that in case the marks of the Petitioner are increased in the
            rechecking then an amended result may also be issued in favour
            of the Petitioner within a stipulated time as may be directed by
            this Hon’ble Court.
D                 B. To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in
            favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
            proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
                   C. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

E            5. After examining the material placed on record, the High Court
      took note of the fact that the paper in question contained 5 questions
      with first 4 questions being of descriptive nature carrying 10 marks each;
      and the 5th question being divided in two parts, requiring short notes
      carrying 5 marks each. The High Court further took note of the fact that
      as per the copy of answer sheet supplied to the writ petitioner, virtually
F     it was not evaluated by the examiner and without application of mind,
      abruptly 2 marks each were awarded in relation to three answers. On
      perusal of the answer sheet and taking note of the submissions made on
      behalf of the parties, the High Court, in its order dated 12.04.2019, put
      the appellant-University to notice as to why serious action be not taken
G     against it and also considered expedient to adopt the procedure of getting
      the answer sheet evaluated by independent examiners. Accordingly, and
      in terms of the directions of the High Court, three sets of answer sheet
      were prepared and were sent to three different examiners, who
      respectively awarded 19, 20 and 21 marks in their individual and
      independent evaluations. After finding material discrepancy in the marks
H
 DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                              477
        GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

awarded by the original examiner, particularly in view of the marks            A
awarded by the said three independent examiners, the High Court stated
its impressions and part of conclusions in the following terms (in
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order impugned): -
         “15. Evaluation made by above three Examiners broadly is
      similar and there is no marked difference in evaluation made by          B
      them. In the original marks awarded, petitioner has been given 2
      marks each in questions 1, 3 and 4 while in questions 2, 5(a) and
      5(b) all the three Examiners, who have made evaluation under
      the orders of this Court have awarded reasonably good or some
      marks to petitioners. Even on questions 1, 3 and 4, marks awarded
      by original Examiner do not come any closer to marks awarded             C
      by these three Examiners.
         16. Since, we have gone through copy of answer sheet, which
      petitioner has obtained under Act 2005 and find that virtually it is
      unchecked copy and apparently it was evident that Examiner has
      not awarded marks by application of mind and, stand now fortified        D
      from evaluation made by three expert Examiners in the report.”
       6. Thereafter, in paragraphs 17 to 28, the High Court expressed
its anguish and disappointment that a beginner professional student was
made to suffer because of an irresponsible and negligent examiner who
did not care to evaluate the answer sheet with due application of mind         E
and then, proceeded to make observations that the facts of the case
reflected upon the lack of efficiency and supervision on the part of the
appellant-University. The High Court further made various comments
as regards career of the students and the requirements of improving the
education system while curbing such infirmities where the examiners/           F
evaluators were not serious enough in discharge of their duties. The
High Court also made extensive observations as regards the status
assigned to a teacher and that the traditional belief in the teachers was
being demolished by the persons like the examiner concerned of the
present case. Yet further, the High Court expressed its serious concern
as to how the examiners/evaluators were selected by the appellant-             G
University while underscoring that the future of even a single student
cannot be compromised. Having said so, the High Court reverted to the
facts of the case and found it just and proper to direct the appellant-
University to award the average of the marks awarded by the said three
examiners to the writ petitioner and thus, to treat that he has been awarded
                                                                               H
478             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     20 marks in the said Paper-II of Physiology, and to allow him to appear
      in further examinations accordingly.
             7. After the aforesaid discussion, the High Court proceeded to
      award costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioner payable by the
      appellant-University at the first instance with liberty to recover the amount
B     from the examiner. The High Court also expressed hope and trust that
      the appellant-University would take appropriate steps so that such
      examiners/evaluators were not deployed to evaluate the answer sheets.
      Moreover, the High Court even provided that if any student, who had
      appeared in the examination of the appellant-University in the preceding
      three years, were to apply for re-assessment or re-evaluation, the request
C     be not declined only on the ground that there was no provision of re-
      evaluation in the Statute of the appellant-University. A copy of judgment
      was also directed to be forwarded to the Secretaries of the Departments
      concerned with the requirement that they would ensure that examiners/
      evaluators were deployed ‘in a reasonably efficient manner’ with strict
D     instructions so that no student might suffer on account of negligence/
      carelessness on the part of the examiners/evaluators. We may usefully
      reproduce the concluding paragraphs of the order impugned as follows:-
             “29. Coming back to facts of this case, we have no option but to
             direct University to award average marks of three Examiners,
             awarded to petitioner under order of this Court and treat that he
E            has been awarded 20 marks in Physiology, Paper-II and accordingly
             correct his marks sheet and result and allow him to appear in
             further examinations accordingly.
             30. We also find it appropriate to award a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
             (i.e. rupees one lac) to petitioner, which at the first instance shall
F            be payable by Agra University but it shall have liberty to recover
             the amount from concerned Examiner, after holding such enquiry
             as provided in law.
            31. We hope and trust that Agra University, now shall take
            appropriate steps so that such irresponsible, scrupulous, unmindful
G           and negligent Examiners/Evaluators are not deployed in future to
            evaluate answer sheets, whether it is a professional examination
            or general subjects or otherwise.
            32. We also provide that, if any student who had appeared in
            examination of Agra University in the preceding three years, apply
H
 DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                             479
        GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

      for reassessment or re-evaluation, taking present case as               A
      illustration, Agra University shall make reassessment/re-evaluation
      of answer sheet(s) of such student(s) and such case(s) shall not
      be declined for re-evaluation/reassessment only on the ground
      that there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Statute of
      University.
                                                                              B
      33. Copy of this judgment be also forwarded to Principal Secretary
      (Higher Education) as well as Secretary (Secondary Education),
      so that they may also look into the matter and ensure that
      Examiners/Evaluators of answer sheets are deployed in a
      reasonably efficient manner and there should be strict instructions
      so that no student may suffer on account of negligence/                 C
      carelessness etc. on the part of Examiners/Evaluators.”
       8. Aggrieved by the directions and requirements aforesaid, the
appellant-University has approached this Court. It may be observed that
after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, while
entertaining the petition seeking leave to appeal on 25.11.2019, this Court   D
stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. We have
been informed that before passing of such stay order by this Court, a
few other writ petitions were filed in the High Court while relying upon
the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and therein, the High Court passed
the orders for re-evaluation while following the decision in question. Be     E
that as it may, we are not commenting upon any other order which is not
in challenge before this Court.
      9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some
length in relation to the observations made and the directions issued by
the High Court in the impugned order dated 21.05.2019.                        F
       9.1 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
procedure as adopted and the directions as issued in the present case by
the High Court are of uncontrollable ramifications, and do not stand in
conformity with the requirements of law. It is submitted that when the
Statute of the University makes no provision for re-evaluation of the         G
answer sheets, directions by the High Court practically make the Statute
of the University redundant and that remains impermissible in law. A
decision of this Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another: (2010) 6 SCC 759
has been referred to. It has also been submitted that the High Court has
                                                                              H
480             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     failed to consider that the question paper being a subjective one, the
      marking style and manner of different examiners cannot be equated as
      it has not been a case of objective type question paper where only one
      answer out of possible options may be correct. It has further been
      submitted that the original examiner had, in fact, scored out the other
      answers while giving no marks, which was equivalent to awarding ‘zero’
B
      mark; and his style of awarding marks could not have been taken as an
      irresponsible manner of evaluation. The learned counsel has also relied
      upon the decision of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State
      of Uttar Pradesh and Others: (2018) 2 SCC 357.
             10. Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent
C     No. 1) has duly supported the order impugned with the submissions that
      he was required to approach the Court when left with no other option;
      and the present one had clearly been a case of the examiner failing in his
      duty to properly evaluate the answer sheet of the writ petitioner. Learned
      counsel would submit that in the given set of facts and circumstances,
D     the reliefs granted by the High Court do not call for any interference.
             11. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions
      and having examined the record, while we do not feel inclined to upset
      the substantive relief granted to the writ petitioner in paragraph 29 of the
      impugned order in the peculiar circumstances of the case but, we have
E     not an iota of doubt that all other directions and mandate issued by the
      High Court in the order impugned cannot be approved.
            12. As regards the question of re-evaluation, the principles
      enunciated by this Court could be usefully recapitulated as follows:
            12.1. In the case of Mukesh Thakur (supra) this Court observed
F     and held as under: -
                “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 [(1984)
G           4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543], 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
H
DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                          481
       GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

   policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court   A
   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               B
      procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or
      regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects
      and purposes of the Act. …
          16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom
      of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate        C
      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             D
      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.”
      25. This view has been approved and relied upon and reiterated
   by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public               E
   Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883
   : AIR 2004 SC 4116] 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          F
      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
                                                                          G
      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
                                                                          H
482             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A               rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right
                whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.”
                *****                    *****                     *****
               26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect
            that in the absence of any provision under the statute or
B           statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally
            direct revaluation.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
            12.2. Further, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this Court
      has observed and held as under: -
C
               “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
D           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
E           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
F           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
G           examination authority rather than to the candidate.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
             12.3. Recently, in the case of Dr. NTR University of Health
      Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh & Ors.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520,
      this Court has, after referring to the previous decisions, including that in
H
 DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                                 483
        GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), thoroughly disapproved the process           A
of the Court calling for answer sheets for satisfying as to whether there
was a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter, issuing directions for
re-evaluation. This Court has observed and held as under: -
       “9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
       decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we           B
       are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in
       calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether
       there was a need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High
       Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying
       whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter
       orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such          C
       a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and
       thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any
       specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that
       too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
       of India is disapproved.”                                                  D
       13. It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing the
examination in question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny
of the answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive
type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and
the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which              E
remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. Therefore, in the ordinary
circumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the process
as adopted by the High Court could not have been given our imprimatur.
However, on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of
the present case, we are refraining from interfering in the substantive
part of the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasons   F
that a direct prohibition in the Statute in question has not been shown;
the original examiner seems to have totally omitted to award the marks
in relation to answer Nos. 2, 5(a) and 5(b); the process of evaluation by
other examiners has been adopted and taken forward by the High Court
by providing for awarding of average of the marks of the three examiners;         G
and any interference at this length of time might entail serious adverse
consequences to the writ petitioner. However, we need to make it clear
in no uncertain terms that non-interference in the present case is not to
be construed as any endorsement by this Court to the process adopted
by the High Court.
                                                                                  H
484             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            14. Moving on to the other relevant aspects of the matter emanating
      from the observations and directions in the order impugned, we are clearly
      of the view that even if we do not disturb the relief of award of modified
      marks as granted to the writ petitioner, the other observations and
      directions in the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 cannot be approved.
B            15. Having gone through the impugned order dated 21.05.2019,
      we are constrained to observe that major part of the observations
      occurring in paragraphs 17 to 28 thereof had been rather unnecessary.
      At any rate, in the adjudicatory process dealing with a prayer for issuance
      of a writ of mandamus with reference to the grievance of the writ
      petitioner and the facts emerging on record, the observations as to the
C     status of teachers in the society and other co-related observations were,
      in our view, not even required. Be that as it may, even if we assume that
      the High Court was impelled to make such observations for its anguish
      in view of the infirmities referable to the original examiner, imposition of
      costs in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant-University does not appear
D     congruent to the subject-matter of the petition and consistent with role
      of the University.
             16. Yet further, forwarding a copy of the judgment to the Principal
      Secretary (Higher Education) as also to the Secretary (Secondary
      Education) to ensure deployment of examiners/evaluators ‘in a
E     reasonably efficient manner’ does not appear to be of giving specific
      directions which are capable of implementation with certainty. In any
      case, such general expectations of reasonable efficiency are applicable
      to every area of activity, whether of an individual or of the State or of an
      instrumentality of the State but, stating such expectations as a part of
      mandamus of the Court cannot be said to be in conformity with the
F     requirements of concluding an adjudicatory process with certitude. In
      other words, while rendering decision in a litigation, the Court would be
      expected to issue only such directions which could be executed/
      implemented with certainty. The observations of the nature made by the
      High Court, which are largely of general expectations, are difficult to be
G     approved as a mandamus from the writ Court.
             17. Apart from the above, what has been directed in paragraph
      32 of the order impugned is required to be disapproved in toto. In the
      said paragraph 32, the High Court has proceeded to issue directions in
      the manner that all the examinations of the appellant-University during
H     the preceding three years are thrown open for re-assessment or re-
 DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRA v. DEVARSH NATH                                485
        GUPTA & ORS. [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

evaluation. With respect, we are unable to find any logic or rationale in        A
such directions.
        17.1. In our view, in a Court of law, when a particular litigation in
reference to its subject-matter is taken up for final decision, ordinarily,
the decision ought to remain confined to the issues arising for determination
in the matter. Even if an ancillary relief or direction is considered            B
appropriate, the same could be granted or issued by the Court only in
direct correlation with the facts and circumstances of the case and not
beyond. Moreover, for one particular fault of one individual in one
particular matter, all the concluded matters cannot be ordered to be re-
opened. In a matter of the present nature, if the assessment by one
examiner/evaluator has been found questionable by the High Court, neither        C
all the examiners could be presumed to be irresponsible nor every result
declared by the University could be re-opened. As noticed, on 25.11.2019,
while entertaining the petition leading to this appeal, this Court stayed
the operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2019. However, before
granting of stay by this Court, several other writ petitions were filed in       D
the High Court, seeking the same relief of re-evaluation or re-checking;
and the learned Single Judge of the High Court had no option but to
grant the prayers. We are constrained to observe that all such unnecessary
litigations had their genesis only in the unwarranted directions, as contained
in the said paragraph 32 of the order impugned.
                                                                                 E
       17.2. As aforesaid, we would not be re-opening any concluded
matter which is not in challenge before us but, with respect, we need to
observe that the directions contained in paragraph 32 of the order
impugned remain wholly untenable and are required to be annulled all
together. In this regard, we may also observe that when there is no
provision for re-evaluation in the Statute of the University, issuance of        F
any writ of mandamus of this nature would practically amount to issuing
directions for doing something which is not provided for by law.
       18. We could summarise by saying that in a given case, even if
the Court is to express its dissatisfaction as regards any particular state
of affairs, the circumspection requisite of the Court even as regards the        G
expressions cannot be forsaken; and the relief to be granted in a given
case ought to remain confined to the subject-matter of litigation before
the Court. Even the process of granting of ancillary or other relief or
issuance of other direction cannot travel beyond the real questions in
controversy before the Court. It gets perforce reiterated that one               H
486              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     particular fault or infirmity at one particular level, when being
      appropriately dealt with by the Court, cannot be generalised and all other
      similar processes in any institution or by the person concerned cannot be
      presumed to be suffering from illegalities or infirmities. The High Court
      in the present case, while expressing its dissatisfaction, and presumably
      to provide for a cleansing process, has inexplicably travelled far beyond
B
      the issues at hand and has issued untenable directions apart from making
      unnecessary observations. All this, in our view, was avoidable; and ought
      to have been avoided. We say no more.
             19. For what has been discussed and observed hereinabove, while
      not disturbing the directions and mandate in paragraph 29 of the order
C     impugned as also the expressions of hope and trust in paragraph 31 of
      the order impugned, we are clearly of the view that the directions
      contained in paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of the order impugned cannot be
      approved and deserve to be set aside.
             20. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this appeal succeeds
D     and is allowed in part and to the extent that paragraphs 30, 32 and 33 of
      the order impugned are annulled and are set aside. No costs.
            21. Needless to reiterate that the relief otherwise given to the
      writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) by other part of the order impugned
      remains undisturbed only for the peculiar circumstances of the present
E     case.

      Nidhi Jain                                             Appeal partly allowed.
      (Assisted by : Vinayak and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)


F




G




H