Holding

The Vice‑Chancellor possesses express and implied authority under s.12(2) and s.12(3) of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act and the university statutes to order re‑evaluation, but the Executive Council was justified in cancelling the flawed re‑evaluation and directing a supplementary exam.

Summary

In the 2006 MBBS first‑year examination, 992 candidates failed and 436 applied for re‑totalling of marks. After complaints of improper evaluation, the Vice‑Chancellor of N.T.R. University of Health Sciences ordered a re‑verification of answer scripts through a three‑member committee, resulting in 294 candidates being declared passed. The Executive Council later cancelled this re‑evaluation, citing procedural irregularities and pressure on the Vice‑Chancellor, and directed a supplementary examination for all failed candidates. The students filed writ petitions; the High Court initially allowed them, but a Division Bench reversed, holding the Vice‑Chancellor lacked authority. The Supreme Court held that the Vice‑Chancellor does have express and implied powers under s.12(2) and s.12(3) of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 and the university statutes to order re‑evaluation, but because his action was taken under coercion and the process was flawed, the Executive Council was justified in cancelling the results and ordering a supplementary exam. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Executive Council’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the Vice‑Chancellor has statutory power under s.12(2) and s.12(3) of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 to order re‑evaluation/re‑verification of answer scripts.
Whether the Executive Council can set aside the re‑evaluation results and direct a supplementary examination.
Whether re‑evaluation of answer scripts is permissible in the absence of a specific statutory provision.
Whether the Vice‑Chancellor’s order was arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory requirements.

Subjects

University administrationVice‑Chancellor powersRe‑evaluation of answer scriptsSupplementary examinationAdministrative lawStatutory interpretationNTR University of Health Sciences Act

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1032

A SAHITI AND OTHERS t-
v.
THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6202 OF 2008)
B OCTOBER 22, 2008
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M.
PANCHAL, JJ.]
y

c N. TR. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986:
ss. 12(2) and (3) - Power of Vice-Chancellor to order re-
evaluation of answer scripts - MBBS First Year Examination ;-
September/October 2006 - A large umber of candidates de- ~
clared 'fail' - Complaints regarding improper evaluation and
D questions being out of syllabus - Vice-Chancellor ordering
re-verification of answer-scripts of examinees who had applied
for re-totaling of marks - HELD: Vice Chancellor has power to *
take appropriate action relating to the affairs of University which
includes conduct of examinations also - He has also emer-
E gency powers to deal with any untoward situation - Division
Bench of High Court was not right in holding that Vice-Chan-
eel/or had no power I jurisdiction to order re-verification of an-
swer scripts - However, on facts, since Vice-Chancellor had
exercised the power to order re-verification of answer scripts
J
F under pressure and coercion from students and their parents
and not independently on merits, Division Bench of High Court \
.
was justified in upholding the decision of Executive Council
to cancel the results obtained on re-verification of answer
scripts and ordering supplementary examination of all candi-
dates declared as 'fail' in the particular examination - Stat-
G
utes of N. TR. University of Health Sciences - Clause 1(3).
Education: r
Re-evaluation of answer-scripts - HELD: Is perfectly le-

H 1032
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1033
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS.

--t gal and permissible - If the University authorities are of opin- A
I
ion that re-evaluation is necessary, then Court would be slow
to substitute its own views and it should show due regard to
the opinion expressed by the educational authorities, who are
experts in academic matters, unless the decision contravenes
any statutory or binding rule or ordinance or is arbitrary, un- B
reasonable or mala fide - Administrative Law.

'( The appellants appeared in the first year MBBS Ex-
amination held in September/October 2006 by the respon-
dent University. In the said examination a total number of
992 students were declared "fail", out of whom 436 ap- c
plied for re-totalling of their marks. Meanwhile, complaints
were made on behalf of the students in the name of
"MBBS First Year Students' Parents' Association" with the
allegations that certain papers were not properly evalu-
-<
' ated and some questions in a certain paper were out of d
'j,
syllabus. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee
of three expert Professors which undertook re-verifica-
tion of answer-scripts. Consequently, 294 out of 436, who
had applied for retotalling, were declared "pass". This was
considered and approved by the Executive Council of the E
University. Subsequently, complaints were made alleging
irregularities in the process of re-verification. Ultimately,
the Executive Council of the University cancelled the
whole process of re-evaluation and directed all the stu-
dents, who had failed in First Year MBBS Examination held F
f in September/October 2006, to reappear in the supplemen-
"' tary examination which was scheduled for April 25, 2007.
Writ petitions were filed by the students who had
been declared 'pass' after re-verification. The Single Judge
of the High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that G
'' the Vice-Chancellor had power u/s 12(2) of the N.T.R. Uni-
\ versity of Health Sciences Act, 1986 to appoint commit-
tee for re-evaluation of answer- scripts of the students
and, in the absence of any express power conferred on
the Executive Council it was not justified in cancelling the H
1034. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A whole process of re-verification. However, the Division
Bench in the writ appeal upheld the order and direction
of the Executive Council observing that the Vice-Chan-
cellor had no jurisdiction u/s 12(2) of the Act to order re-
evaluation of the answe.r scripts. Aggrieved, the writ peti-
B tioners filed the instant appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court was
not right in holding that the Vice-Chancellor of the Uni-
C versity had no power or jurisdiction to order re-verifica-
tion of answer scripts. A conjoint and meaningful reading
of the provisions of s.12(2) with s.12(3) of the NTR Uni-
versity of Health Sciences Act, 1986 and Clause 1(3) of
the Statutes of the University framed u/s 30 of the Act,
makes it evident that the Vice-Chancellor has power to
D take appropriate action relating to the affairs of the Uni-
versity, which includes conduct of examination also. The
Vice-Chancellor is entrusted with the responsibility of
overall administration of academic as well as non-aca-
demic affairs. For these purposes, keeping in view the
E pivotal position of the Vice Chancellor as the principal
executive officer, the Act confers both express and im-
plied powers on him. It is the magisterial power which is
plainly to be inferred. The wordings of Sub-Clause (3)' of
Clause 1 of the Statute show that a residuary power which
F is required to be exercised, in order to see that the provi-
sions of the Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regula-
tions are duly observed, is vested in the Vice-Chancellor.
He has also emergency powers to deal with any unto-
ward situation. The power conferred under s. 12(2) and
12(3) is indeed significant. Sub-section (3) of s.12 provides
G that the Vice-Chancellor may, if he is of opinion that im-
mediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any
power conferred on any authority of the University by or
under the Act and shall report to such authority the ac-
tion taken by him on such matter. [para 8-9] (1047-B; 1043-
H E, F; 1044-A to D)
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1035
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS.

1.2 Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence A
of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible.
Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and con-
sidering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible un-
der the Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner
has to be careful and cautious and he has the duty to B
ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. There-

-
fore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an
examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful
in evaluating the answer scripts, re-evaluation may be
found necessary. If the University authorities are of the
opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is neces- c
sary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own
views for that of the experts in academic matters, and
should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the
authority unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable,
mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statu- D
tory or binding rule or ordinance. [Para 9] (1044-G; 1046-
-+- F, G; 1047-A; 1045-A)
Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda
and Another (2004) 13 SCC 383 and Pramod Kumar
Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission E
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 372 =
(2004) 6 SCC 714 - Distin-
guished.
2.1 In the instant case, the facts indicate that the Vice-
Chancellor had exercised power to order re-verification
of answer scripts under pressure and coercion from the
F
f
> students and their parents and not independently on
merits. If the Vice-Chancellor was of the opinion_ that re-
evaluation of answer scripts was necessary, he should
have directed reevaluation of answer scripts of all 992
students who had failed and his direction could not have G
been confined only to 436 students who had never ap-
-r plied for re-evaluation of their answer script, but had ap-
, plied only for re-totalling of their marks recorded on the
answer scripts. From the record, it is evident that the Uni-
versity authorities including the Vice-Chancellor did not H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.G.R.

A at all go into the merits of the allegations made in the com-
plaints/representations submitted by the parent's asso-
ciation. There is nothing on record to give any indication
of methodology adopted by the Committee for re-evalua-
tion. Moreover, the Members of the Committee appointed
B by the Vice-Chancellor for the purpose had undertaken
re-verification of 1082 answer scripts and completed the
process in two days which itself indicates that the said
re-evaluation was not properly done and no credence Y
could be given to the same. [Para 9] (1047-C to G)
C 2.2 It is worth noticing that the decision of the Ex-
ecutive Council to cancel the result of the students on
the basis of reverification and giving an opportunity to
the failed students to re-appear in the first year MBBS
examination was approved by the Vice-Chancellor him-
D self. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in upholding the decision of the Executive Coun-
cil to cancel the results obtained on re-verification of an-
swer scripts. [Para 9] (1047-G, H; 1048-A)
2.3 As stated on behalf of the University, it will hold
E supplementary examination of all those students who
have yet not cleared the examination of First Year M.8.8.S.
held in September/October 2006. Pursuant to ttle interim
orders, 294 students were permitted to prosecute stud-
ies in Second Year M.8.8.S. If any such student fails in
F supplementary examination of First Year M.8.8.S. exami-
nation, his results for Second Year M.S.B.S would be with-
held or his further·course of study would be decided in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Uni- ·
versity applicable to such students. [Para 1O] (1048~C. D)
G
CASE LAW REFERENCE
(2004) 13 sec 383 distinguished para 9 ·-r
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 372 distinguished para 9

H
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1037
UNIV. OF HEALtH SCIENCES & ORS.

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6202 A
:i of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.7.2007 of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal
No. 402 of 2007
B
WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 6203, 6204, 6206-11 and 6212 of 2008
Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., T.R. Andhyarujina, V.
Kanagaraj, Altaf Ahmed, M.N. Rao, L.N. Rao, G.V.R. Choudhary, c
K. Shivraj Chaudhuri, Guntur Prabhakar, Altaf Fathima, M. Vijaya
Bhaskar, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, Y. Ramesh,
Vismai Rao, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr.
Singh and Rahul Shukla (for T.V. George) for the Appearing
Parties.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-f.-
J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special
leave petitions.
2. The instant appeals are directed against judgment E
dated July 20, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench of High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabaq in Writ
Appeal No. 402 of 2007 and other cognate appeals by which
the common judgment dated May 1, 2007, rendered by the
learned single Judge of the High Court upholding action of the F

~
f Vice-Chancellor of Dr N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,
Vijaywada (for short "the University") of re-verification/re-valua-
tion/re-examination of answer scripts of 436 students, who had
failed jn first year MBBS examination during academic year
2006-07, ·is set aside and the decision of the Executive Coun-
G
cil to cancel the result of re-verification of answer scripts and
asking 294 students, who were declared passed on re-verifi~
cation of answer scripts to re-appear in examination of first year
MBBS, is upheld.

3. The appellants, who are students, joined first year MBBS H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A course for the academic year 2006-07 in different private medi-
cal colleges which are affiliated to the University, Vijaywada.
They appeared in the first year M.B.B.S. examination held from
September 5, 2006 to October 10, 2006. The results of the ex-
amination were declared on December 2, 2006. The record
B shows that in all 4076 students had appeared in examination
out of whom 992 students were declared failed in different pa-
pers. In the results published by the university, it was specifi-
cally mentioned that such of those students who wanted to at-
tend personal identification for re-totalling of their theory answer
C scripts should submit their applications on or before Decem-
ber 13, 2006. This personal identification was meant to enable
the students to apply for re-totalling of.their answer scripts. Out
of the 992 students who had failed, 436 students applied for re-
totalling of their respective answer scripts. When the process
D of re-totalling was going on, some representations were ad-
dressed to Hi~ Excellency, the Governor, who is Chancellor of
the university, and the Hon'ble Minister for Medical and Health
as well the Vice-Chancellor of the university on behalf of the
students in the name of MBBS First Year Students' Parents'
Association with complaints of improper and under valuation of
E answer scripts. In the complaints, it was stated that answer
scripts of three papers i.e. Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chem-
istry were not properly valued and the valuation was harsh
whereas some questions in Physiology were out of syllabus and
because of all these factors, the percentage of students who
F had cleared the examination was low. It is the case of the stu-
dents that, the Vice-Chancellor, after listening to their grievances,
assured that he would verify the answer books and if neces-
sary, get them re-examined. Having regard to the nature of com-
plaints received, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee
G of three expert professors on January 3, 2007 for re-verifica-
tion/re-valuation/re-examination of answer scripts. The Com-
mittee undertook re-verification of the answer scripts and re-
corded marks on printed slips of papers which were stapled at
- the top of answer scripts. On the basis of re-verification made
H by the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, the Uni-
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1039
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J]
- -1
versity declared revised results on February 2, 2007 and 294 A
students out of 436 students, who had applied for re-totalling,
were declared "Pass". The action taken by the Vice-Chancellor
of re-totalling and re-verification of the answer sheets of First
Year M.B.B.S. examination held in September/October, 2006
was placed before Executive Council for its ratification. The 8
matter was considered by Executive Council and the Council
had approved the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor. The re-
vised results were sent to the Principals of medical colleges.
Subsequent to the declaration of the results, after re-valuation
His Excellency, the Governor of the State, as well as the Minis- c
ter for Medical, Health and Family Welfare and Vice-Chancel-
lor of the University received communications and complaints
stating that irregularities were committed in the process of re-
verification. Because of the controversy generated in the me-
dia, His Excellency the Governor forwarded the complaints re-
D
ceived by him to the Executive Council of the University for ap-
·-f
propriate action. A meeting of the Executive Council of the Uni-
versity was convened to consider the action of re-totalling and
re-verification of answer scripts relating to First Year M.B.B.S.
examination held in September/October, 2006. The Executive
Council resolved to ask the Government of Andhra Pradesh to E
.-\

constitute a high level committee to go into the circumstances
under which re-verification of answer sheets was undertaken
and find out whether any irregularities had taken place. The
Executive Council further resolved to withhold declaration of the
+ revised results of First Year M.B.B.S. course till the enquiry re- F ,
,;.
port was submitted and give intimation of the same to the Prin-
cipals of medical colleges concerned. Accordingly, by letter
dated February 2, 2007 the Principals of medical colleges were
informed not to give effect to the results obtained on re-verifica-
tion of answer scripts of First Year M.B.B.S. examination. In G '

~·
pursuance to the resolution of Executive Council, the University
.. twice requested the Andhra Pradesh Government to constitute
a high level committee but the Government did not oblige the
University. Meanwhile, petitions were filed in High Court by the
beneficiaries of the re-valuation of answer scripts seeking a H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A direction to permit them to attend the second year M.B.B.S.
course. The request made by the Registrar to the Government
to constitute a high level committee to examine the whole issue
was not acceded to but the Govetnment referred the matter to
the Law Department and Medical Department of the State. The
B Medical Department did not agree with the action of the Vice-
Chancellor. Ultimately the Chief Secretary sought the opinion
of the learned Advocate General of the State in the matter who,
by his letter dated 29..,03-07, opined that the decision of Vice-
Chancellor permitting re-valuation of answer scripts was not in
C accordance with the provisions of law/procedure. According to
the learned AdvocMe General, merely because certain repre-
sentations/complaints were received from the students/parents
of the students, the Vice-Chancellor ought not to have ordered
re-correction of answer scripts, more particularly, when there is
D no provision to do so in the Act. The learned Advocate General
expressed the opinion that the University, being an autonomous
body, there was no necessity for referring the matter to Govern-
ment for the purpose of enquiring into the whole issue and, there-
fore, the very reference/request made by the University asking
the Government to probe into the matter was not in accordance
E with the proviso to Section 12(3) of the N .T.R. University of Health
Sciences Act 1986 ('the Act' for short).
In view of the opinion of the learned Advocate General, the '
meeting of the Executive Council was convened on April 2, 2007.
F The Vice-Chancellor informed other members of Executive Coun-
cil that re-valuation of answer scripts was ordered because of
the pressure from the students who had failed and their parents.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the Executive· Council
agreed with the opinion of learned Advocate General and unani-
G mously cancelled the whole process of re-valuation. The Execu-
tive Council was of the opinion that opportunity should be given
to the failed students to re-appear in the examination and, there-
fore, it directed the students who had failed in September/Octo-
, ber 2006 examination to reappear in the examination which was
scheduled to take place on April 25, 2007.
H
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1041
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J]

4. The students and their parents were of the opinion that A
the Executive Council was not justified in cancelling the whole
process of re-valuation, which was undertaken pursuant to the
order of the Vice-Chancellor nor the Executive Council was jus-
tified in asking the students to re-appear in first year MBBS
examination, which was scheduled to be held on April 25, 2007. B
Therefore, they invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing Writ Petition
No. 8658 of 2007 and other batch of petitions.
5. The learned single Judge of the High Court was of the
opinion that the Vice-Chancellor had power under Section 12(2) C
of the Act, to appoint committee for re-verification of the an-
swer scripts of the stud~nts and in the absence of any express
power conferred on the Executive Council or the Academic
Council, the Executive Council was not justified in cancelling
the whole process undertaken for re-verification at the behest D
of the Vice-Chancellor. In view of above mentioned findings,
the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the
students vide judgment dated May 1, 2007.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the Registrar of the University filed
Writ Appeal No. 402 of 2007 and other cognate appeals. The E.
Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the Vice-
Chancellor of the University had no jurisdiction under Section
12(2) of the Act to order re-verification of the answer scripts of
the students and, therefore, the Executive Council was justified
in cancelling the whole process of re-valuation as well as di- F
recting the students to re-appear in first year MBBS examina-
tion, which was scheduled to take place on April 25, 2007. In
view of these conclusions, the Qivision Bench of the High Court
allowed the writ appeals filed by the Registrar of the University
giving rise to the instant appeals. G
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the par-
ties at length and in great detail. This Court has also taken into
consideration the docum'ents forming part of the appeals.
From the record of the case it is evident that in all, 4076 H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 14 S.C.R.

A students had appeared in first year MBBS examination, which
was held between September 5, 2006 and October 10, 2006.
The results of the examination were declared on December 2,
2006 and 992 students were declared failed in different pa-
pers. Out of 992 students, who were declared failed, 436 stu-
B dents had applied for re-totalling of the marks assigned by the
examiners in three different papers. When this process of re-
totalling was going on, some representations were submitted
to the University and Vice-Chancell_or on behalf of the students
in the name of MBBS First Year Students' Parent's Association
with complaints of improper and under valuation of answer
C scripts. The record shows that Vice-Chancellor directed re-veri-
fication of the answer scripts. On January 3, 2007 the Vice-
Chancellor constituted a committee of three professors for re-
verification of answer scripts. The Committee undertook re-veri-
fication and recorded marks on the printed slips of papers
o stapled at the top of the answer scrip~s. On the basis of the re-
verification undertaken by the Committee constituted by the
Vice-Chancellor, the University declared revised results on Feb-
ruary 2, 2007 by which 294 students out of 436 students, who
had applied for re-totalling, were declared "Pass". Subsequently,
E highest authorities of the University received communications
and complaints that irregularities were committed in the pro-
cess of re-verification. In the backdrop of the complaints, the
matter was placed before the Executive Council for consider-
ing the question whether the action taken for the re-verification
of the answer scrip_ts by the Vice-Chancellor of the University
F was valid. The Vice-Chancellor agreed before the Executive
Council that he had ordered re-verification under pressure and
coercion from the students and their parents. Having regard to
the facts of the case, the Executive Council did not approve the
action of the Vice-Chancellor directing re-verification of the an-
G swer scripts and cancelled the whole process of re-verification.
The Executive Council was further of the opinion that opportu-
nity should be given to the failed students to re-appear in ex- ·
amination and, therefore, it directed the students, who had failed,
to re-appear in the first year MBBS examination, which was
H scheduled to be held on April 25, 2007.
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCfLLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1043
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J]

--r 8. The Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the A
judgment of the learned single Judge on the ground that the
Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power to order re-veri-
fication of the answer scripts. Section 12(2) of the Act reads as
under: -
"The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal executive and B
academic officer of the University and shall exercise
general supervision and control over the affairs of the
University and give effect to the decisions of all the
authorities of the University."
C,
Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides that the Vice-Chan-
cellor may, if he is of opinion that immediate action is neces-
sary on any matter, exercise any power conferred on any au-
thority of the University by or under the Act and shall report to
such authority the action taken by him on such matter. The pro-
0
viso to sub-Section (3) stipulates that if the authority concerned
is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it
may refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon
shall be final.
9. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the provisions of E
Section 12(2) of th_e Act with Section 12(3) of the Act makes it
evident that the Vice-Chancellor has power to take appropriate
action relating to the affairs of the University, which includes
conduct of examination also. The Vice-Chancellor is the con-
scious keeper of the University. He is the principal executive F
and academic officer of the University. He is entrusted with the
responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as
non-academic affairs. For these purposes, the Act confers both
express and implied powers on the Vice-Chancellor. Section
30 of the Act confers power on the Executive Council to make
statutes. In exercise of that power, the Executive Council has G
framed the Statutes of University. Clause 1 of the Statutes deals
with the status of the Vice-Chancellor and his powers and du-
ties. Sub-Clause (3) of Clause 1 of the Statues provides that it
shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the provi-
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A sions of this Act, the Statues, Ordinances and Regulations are 'r
duly observed and he may exercise all powers necessary for
this purpose. Thus the express powers include among others,
the duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordi-
nances and Regulations are observed by all concerned. The
B wordings of Sub-Clause (3) of Clause 1 of the Statute shows
that a residuary power which is required to be exercised, in
order to see that the provisions of the Act, the Statute~. Ordi-
nances and Regulations are duly observed, is vested in the Vice- y
Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor has right to regulate the work
and conduct of officers and other employees of the University.
c He has also emergency powers to deal with any untoward situ-
ation. The power conferred under Section 12(2) and 12(3) is
indeed significant. If the Vice-Chancellor believes that a situa-
tion calls for immediate action, he can take such action as he
thinks necessary though in the normal course he is not compe-
D
tent to take that action. However, he must report to the con-
cerned authority or body, who would, in the ordinary course, have ~

dealt with the matter. That is not all. His pivotal position as the
principal executive officer also carries with him certain implied
powers. It is the magisterial power which is plainly to be inferred.
E This power is essential for him to maintain domestic discipline
in the academic and non-academic affairs. In a wide variety of
situations in the relationship of tutor and pupil he has to act firmly
and promptly to put down indiscipline and malpractice. As per
--..,_
the Statutes of university, the Vice-Chancellor is whole-time Of-
F ficer of the university and by virtue of his office, is a Member ,,
and Chairman of the Executive Council and of the Academic ....,
Council. He has power to convene meetings of the Executive
Council and the Academic Council.
The plea that there is absence of specific provision en-
G
·abling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer
scripts and, therefore, the Judgment impugned should not be f- ....
interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer
scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal
and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider
H
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR N.T.R. 1045
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J]

is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, A
unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes
any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the
Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the
authority. In Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan
Panda and Another (2004) 13 SCC 383, the respondent No.1, 8
i.e., Pravas Ranjan Panda appeared in the High School Certifi-
cate Examination, 2003 as a regular candidate. He passed the
said examination securing about 90% marks. He filed a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that he
had answered all the questions correctly without committing any C
mistake and, therefore, deserved full marks in each paper, but
due to carelessness and negligence of the Board in appointing
inexperienced and unqualified examiners in certain papers, low
marks had been awarded to him due to which he lost his chance
of being within the first ten examinees in the HSC Examination,
0
2003. A prayer was made for re-evaluation of his answer book.
The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the
Board to scrutinize and recheck the answer scripts of examin-
ees securing 90% and above marks in aggregate in HSC Ex-
\ amination 2003 and if there was any change or variation in the
'
marks the petitioner should be informed accordingly. The can- E
didates secured less than 90% of marks in aggregate who had
applied for rechecking and readdition of marks in certain an-
swer papers had to be considered in accordance with the reso-
lution of Board for rechecking of marks.
F
A review petition was subsequently filed by the Board
wherein it was submitted that the Board shall face immense
difficulties in scrutinizing and examining all answer sheets after
publication of the results. It was also stated that 217 examinees
had secured 90% and above marks in the examination and 27 G
examiners of the status of Chief Examiner would be required
for re-examination of the answer books and some more exam-
iners would be necessary to examine the subject of third lan-
guage. However, the review petition was dismissed. In appeals
the Supreme Court noticed that the High Court, though observed .
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A that the writ petitioner who had taken the examination was hardly
a competent person to assess his own merit and on that basis
claim re-evaluation of papers, but issued the aforesaid direc-
tion in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account
of marginal variation in the marks. It was admitted before the
B Supreme Court that the regulation of the Board of Secondary
education, Orissa did not make any provision of re-evaluation
of answer books o( the students. The Supreme Court was of
the opinion that the question whether in absence of any provi-
sion to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evalua-
C tion of his answer books was examined by the Supreme Court
in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Ser-
vice Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714. It was noticed by the
Supreme Court that in the said decision it was held that in ab-
sence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer books no
direction should be issued because a direction for re-evalua-
D tion of the answer books would throw many problems and in the
larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. There-
fore, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the order
of the High Court directing re-evaluation of the answer books of
all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was clearly
E unsustainable in law and set aside the same. The above deci-
sion deals with the right of the student or candidate to claim re-
examination/re-evaluation of his answer sheet and the power
of the High Court to order reyaluation of answer sheets. It does
not deal with the power of the Board t-0 order re-evaluation of
F answer books if factual scenario so demands. Award of marks
by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-
evaluation is not permissible under the Statute at the instance
of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has
the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. There-
G fore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an ex-
aminer is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evalu-
ating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found necessary.
There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the
answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court
H need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However,
SAHITI & ORS. v. THE CHANCELLOR, DR. N.T.R. 1047
UNIV. OF HEALTH SCIENCES & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J]

"""t if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the an- A
swer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to sub-
stitute its own views for that of those who are expert in aca-
demic matters. Under the circumstances the plea advanced on
behalf of the respondents that Vice-Chancellor of the N.T.R.
University of Health, Sciences had no authority to order re-evalu- B
ation of the answer scripts, cannot be upheld. Therefore, this
Court does not agree with the finding recorded by the Division
~
Bench of the High Court that the Vice-Chancellor of the Univer-
sity had no power or jurisdiction to order the re-verification of
answer scripts. However, the facts indicate that the Vice-Chan-
cellar had exercised power to order re-verification of answer
c
scripts under pressure and coercion from the students and their
parents and not independently on merits. As noticed earlier, 436
students had merely demanded re-totalling of marks. If the Vice-
Chancellor was of the opinion that revaluation of answer scripts
was necessary, he should have directed revaluation of answer
D
,(
t scripts of all 992 students who had failed and revaluation of
answer scripts could not have been confined only to 436 stu-
dents who had never applied for re-valuation of their an.swer
script, but had applied only for re-totalling of their marks recorded
on the answer scripts. From the record, it is evident that the E
University authorities including the Vice-Chancellor, did not at
all go into the merits of the allegations made in the complaints/
representations submitted by the parent's association for re-
verification to find out whether there was any grain of truth in
them. The record produced by the University does not give any F·
1
# indication of methodology adopted by the Committee for re-
valuation. Moreover, the Members of the Committee appointed
by the Vice-Chancellor for re-valuation of answer scripts had
undertaken re-verification of 1082 answer scripts and completed

., re-verification in two·days which itself indicates that the said re-
valuation was not properly done and no credence could be given
to the same. It is worth noticing that the decision of the Execu-
tive Council to cancel the result of the students on the basis of
G

re-verification and giving an opportunity to the failed students
.
to re-appear in the first year MBBS examination was approved H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A by the Vice-Chancellor himself. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified
r
in upholding the decision of the Executive Council to cancel the
result obtained on re-verification of answer scripts.
10. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor
B General appearing for the respondents, has stated at the Bar
that the University is inclined to hold supplementary examina-
tion of the students, who have yet to clear first year MBBS ex- 'y
amination. Therefore, NTR University of Health Sciences is
hereby directed to hold supplementary examination of all stu-
C dents who have yet not cleared the examination of First Year
M.B.B.S. held in September/October 2006. Pursuant to interim
orders, 294 students were permitted to prosecute studies in
Second Year M.B.B.S. If any student/students fails/fail in supple-
mentary examination of First Year M.B.B.S. examination, the
D declaration of the results of such candidate/candidates who
appear for Second Year M.B.B.S be withheld or their further
course of study be decided based on the Rules and Regula-
tions of University applicable to such students. It is clarified that
the abovementioned direction would apply only to those stu-
E dents who had appeared and failed in the first year M.B.B.S.
examination held between September 5, 2006 and October 10,-
2006. Subject to the direction given above, this Court finds that
no ground is made out by the appellants to interfere with the
ultimate conclusion reached by the Division Bench and, there-
F fore, the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be
no order as to costs.
RP. Appeals disposed of.