THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAL/PREDENTAL EXAMINATION, C.B.S.E. & ORS.versusKHUSHBOO SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

                         [2011] 10 S.C.R. 286


A       THE SECRETARY, ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAL/PRE-
           DENTAL EXAMINATION, C.B.S.E. & ORS.
                                    v.
                KHUSHBOO SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2011)
B                         AUGUST 17, 2011
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Education - Medical Admissions:
c
         Bye-laws of All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance
    Examination, 2007 - All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental
    Entrance Examination conducted by CBSE - Representation
    filed by the candidate before CBSE for re-examination and
    re-totalling of her marks, rejected - Writ petition :- High Court .
0
    directed CBSE to produce answer sheets of the candidate on
    the condition that the candidate would deposit Rs. 25, 0001-
    to prove her bonafides -Amount deposited -.Comparison of
    answers of the candidate with model answers by the Single
    Judge of the High Court who held that she was not given two
E   marks - However, no relief granted except directing to refund
    the amount deposited by the candidate - Division Bench of
    the High Court upheld the order and directed that the
    candidate be admitted in the MBBS course in the next
    academic session - On appeal, held: Bye-laws concerned did
F   not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answers
    sheets - Thus, the appellants-Secretary Examination rejected
    the representation of the candidate for re-examination/re-
    evaluation of her answers sheets - Neither the Single Judge
    nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have
G   substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and
    awarded two additional marks to the candidate for the two
    answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article
    226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters
    - Impugned judgment of the Single Judge and the Division
H                                  286
SECRETARY, ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAUPRE-DENTAL EXAMINATION, 287
            C.B.S.E. v. KHUSHBOO SHRIVASTAVA

Bench of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition is   A
dismissed - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226.

    Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
SecondaryEducation and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth and Ors. (1984)4 SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava
v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and
                                                                 8
Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714: 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 372 - relied
on.

    Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda
and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 - referred to.                        C

     Secretary, WB. Council of Higher Secondary Education
v. Ayan andOrs. (2007) 8 sec 242: 2001 (10) SCR 464 -
cited.
                     Case Law Reference:                         D

    2007 (10) SCR 464            Cited             Para 5
    2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 372 Relied on              Para 7
    (2004) 13 sec 383            Referred to       Para 7        E
    (1984) 4 sec 21              Relied on         Para 8
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7024 of 2011.
                                                                 F
    From the Judgment & Order dated 06.02.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 984 of 2008.

     Altaf Ahmed, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma for
the Appellants.
                                                                 G
     Saket Singh, Niranjan Singh for the Respondents.

    The Order of the Court was delivered by

    A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                 H .
    288      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A- -     2. This is an appeal against the judgment dated
    06.02.2009 of the 'Division Bench of the Patna High q_ourt in
    Letters Patent Appeal No.984 of 2008 (for short 'the LPA').
                                                       ·'
           3. The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.1
  B 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
· C 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
  D 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
  E 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
  F evaluated. The ;espcmdent 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 High Court. The learned
     Single Judge compared the answers of the respondent no.1
  G 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
  H answer sheets of respondent No.1 were correctly evaluated
 SECRETARY, ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAUPRE-DENTAL EXAMINATION, 289
     C:B.S.E. v. KHUSHBOO SHRIVASTAVA [A.K PATNAIK, J.]

 she would have got two more marks. The learned Single Judge,         A
 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         B
 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      C
   learned Single Judge after having held that she was entitled to
   two more marks and also to admission in the 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           D
.· 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   E
   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   F
   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        G
   2009-2010.
       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 answersheets of a candidate      H
    290      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   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
B   v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors.
    [(2004) 6 SCC 714) and Secretary, WB. 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
c   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
D High Court and submitted that the respondent 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
E 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.
F
       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
G 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.
H (supra) was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this
  SECRETARY, ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAUPRE-DENTAL EXAMINATION, 291
      C.B.S.E. v. KHUSHBOO SHRIVASTAVA [AK PATNAIK, J.]

 Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan          A
 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                B
 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 C
  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, D
  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 sheets were produced~ the learned Single
  Judge himself compared the answers of the respondent no.1 E
  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 F
  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 G
  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 H
    292        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2011) 10 S.C.R.


A Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v.
    Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (supra) has observed :              1-

           " .... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the
           Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
B          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
c          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
D          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
E 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.

    N.J.                                                 Appeal allowed.
                                                   -.