Interference of courts in cases of answer sheet re-evaluation is allowed only in exceptional situations: High Court of Delhi
The court can interfere in evaluation of an answer sheet only in cases where there is an exceptional situation shown and to a limited extent. This was decided in the case Of Beem Singh Rawat vs. High Court Of Delhi [W.P. (C) 2784/2021, CM APPL. 9290/2021] by two bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Asha Menon. The facts of the case are that The petitioner appeared for the Junior Judicial Assistant/Restorer (Department) Examination, 2019 and when he didn’t qualify the same, he sought the answer sheet vide RTI application. He points out that the petitioner made a representation, citing five questions that had been erroneously marked wrong. The petitioner required minimum twenty marks in both Part A and Part B to qualify for English Typing Test. Petitioner has admittedly received sixteen out of fifty marks in Part A and thirty four out of fifty marks in Part B. Petitioner needs four more marks to qualify in Part A.  This writ petition was filed for issuance of directions to the respondent i.e. the concerned authorities of court to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner. For this the court relied upon the holding of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh &amp; Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357, while discussing the law regarding judicial interference with the results of an examination. It held “the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it.” In another case being High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663 the Supreme Court has held as under: In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. ……. what the Court has laid down is that the Court may permit re-valuation inter alia only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases on the commission of material error. 
Suppl. 19 W.P.2784 2021 CM APPL. 9290 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BEEM SINGH RAWAT Through: Mr. Hari Haran Advocate. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose with Mr. Naman Jain Advocates. Date of Decision: 08th March 2021 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON JUDGMENT MANMOHAN JExamination 2019. Petitioner also prays for an interim order to allow him to appear for the English typing test to be held on 14th March 2021 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was recruited on the rolls of respondent establishment as process server and is presently posted with the Delhi High Court Establishment. He further states that the petitioner appeared for the Junior Judicial Assistant Restorer Department) Examination 2019 and when he didn’t qualify the same he sought the answer sheet vide RTI application. He points out that the petitioner made a representation dated 1st February 2021 citing five questionsthat had been erroneously marked wrong but the same have been rejected vide memorandum dated 1st March 2021. It is an admitted position that the petitioner required minimum twenty marks in both Part A and Part B to qualify for English Typing Test. Petitioner has admittedly received sixteen out of fifty marks in Part A and thirty four out of fifty marks in Part B. Petitioner needs four more marks to qualify in Part A. This Court has perused the chart showing the details of the questions in which revaluation has been sought. In our view the petitioner’s answers to question nos. two four and five are either incorrect or not the most appropriate. The relevant portion of the chart showing question nos. two four and five as well as petitioner’s answers are reproduced herein below: Question No. and question Answer claimed to xxx 2. Question No.5 Neither of them are coming this eveningNo right by xxx ‘A’ ‘None’ is also the right answer xxx Different websites ‘brainly.com’ and ii) Google search xxx xxx xxx 4. Question No.10 i.e. The new incumbent to the job proved his ________ in his very first assignment. 5. Question No.25 i.e. God is which is also the right answer ‘with’ which xxx Different websites Different websites In our view the correct most appropriate answers to question nos. two four and five are ‘No’ ‘Competence’ and ‘to’ respectively. In view of the aforesaid this Court is of the opinion that it would be futile to undertake a revaluation exercise. In fact the Supreme Court in The Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2 SCC 357 while discussing the law regarding judicial interference with the results of an examination has held as under: “18. A complete hands off or no interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur6 SCC 759 : 2 SCC286 : 3 SCEC 713] nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court—the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. 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 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 sheetthen the court may permit re evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed 30.3. The court should not at all re evaluate or scrutinise the 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 examination authority rather than to the candidate. emphasis supplied) In another case being High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi In the event of a doubt the benefit should go to the Mukherjee 16 SCC 663 the Supreme Court has held as under: “23. ....... Even in the judgment of this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. Rahul Singh2 SCC 357 which according to the first respondent forms the basis of the High Court s interference though does not expressly stated so what the Court has laid down is that the Court may permit re valuation inter alia only if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases on the commission of material error. ......” emphasis supplied) 11. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual and legal scenario this Court finds no ground to interfere. Consequently the present writ petition being bereft of merit is 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e mail. MANMOHAN J ASHA MENON J MARCH 08 2021 