- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sahiti And Others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R University Of Health Sciences And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
During the academic year 2006–2007, 4,076 students took the first-year MBBS examination conducted by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. Results announced on 2-12-2006 showed 992 failures. Of these, 436 students sought retotalling of marks. While retotalling was in progress, parents’ associations complained of harsh and improper valuation in Anatomy, Physiology, and Biochemistry papers. Responding to the representations, the Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointed a three-professor committee on 3-1-2007 to undertake complete reverification/re-evaluation of the 436 answer-scripts. Revised results published on 2-2-2007 declared 294 of those students “Pass”.
Subsequent complaints alleging irregularities prompted the University’s Executive Council (EC) to withhold the revised results and, after obtaining the Advocate-General’s opinion that the VC’s action lacked legal basis, the EC on 2-4-2007 cancelled the entire re-evaluation process and directed all failed students to re-sit the examination on 25-4-2007.
Students successfully challenged the EC’s decision before a learned Single Judge, who upheld the VC’s power and reinstated the revised results (1-5-2007). On appeal, a Division Bench reversed that decision, holding the VC lacked such power and sustaining the EC’s cancellation (20-7-2007). The present Supreme Court appeals arise from that Division Bench judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 12(2) & (3) of the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 empowers the Vice-Chancellor to order reverification/re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of an express statutory provision.
- Even if such power exists, whether the Executive Council acted lawfully in cancelling the VC-ordered re-evaluation and requiring the affected students to reappear in the examination.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 | Courts should not direct re-evaluation of answer books when the governing regulations do not provide for it. | Distinguished. The case concerns a student’s right to seek re-evaluation, not the power of an examining authority to order it when circumstances warrant. |
| Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 | In absence of rules permitting re-evaluation, courts should avoid ordering it due to practical complications. | Cited within Panda; referenced to show that student-initiated re-evaluation without statutory backing is generally impermissible, but does not bar the University’s own initiative where justified. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Textual Interpretation: Reading Sections 12(2) and 12(3) together with University Statute 1(3), the Court held that the VC possesses broad, even residual, powers to act in academic and administrative matters, including examinations, when immediate action is required.
2. Scope of VC’s Power: The absence of an explicit provision authorising re-evaluation does not negate the VC’s implied authority to ensure fairness in examinations. Hence, the Division Bench erred in holding that the VC lacked jurisdiction.
3. Improper Exercise of Power: Although jurisdiction existed, the Court found the VC acted under “pressure and coercion” from students and parents rather than on an independent, merit-based assessment. Moreover, only 436 of 992 failed students were re-evaluated, and the committee reviewed 1,082 scripts in merely two days, casting doubt on the integrity of the process.
4. Executive Council’s Response: Given these flaws, the EC’s unanimous decision to nullify the re-evaluation and allow all failed students a fresh opportunity was reasonable. The VC himself concurred with the EC’s cancellation.
5. Precedential Context: The Court distinguished cases where students sought court-ordered re-evaluation, emphasising that those rulings do not restrict an educational authority’s own power to correct evaluation defects.
Holding and Implications
Appeals DISPOSED OF. The Supreme Court upholds the Executive Council’s cancellation of the impugned re-evaluation while recognising the VC’s underlying authority. It directs the University to conduct a supplementary examination for all students who have not yet cleared the first-year MBBS examination (Sept/Oct 2006). Results of second-year studies for provisionally promoted students will hinge on their performance in that supplementary test, in accordance with University regulations.
Implications: The decision confirms that a Vice-Chancellor has implied emergency powers over examination matters, yet exercises of such power must be bona fide, procedurally fair, and applied uniformly. No new legal precedent on re-evaluation was created, but the ruling clarifies administrative boundaries within university governance.
J.M Panchal, J.— Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
2. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20-7-2007 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 402 of 2007 and other cognate appeals by which the common judgment dated 1-5-2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court upholding action of the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada (for short “the University”) of reverification/revaluation/re-examination of answer scripts of 436 students, who had failed in the first year MBBS examination during Academic Year 2006-2007, is set aside and the decision of the Executive Council to cancel the result of reverification of answer scripts and asking 294 students, who were declared passed on reverification of answer scripts to reappear in the examination of first year MBBS, is upheld.
3. The appellants, who are students, joined first year MBBS course for Academic Year 2006-2007 in different private medical colleges which are affiliated to the University, Vijayawada. They appeared in the first year MBBS examination held from 5-9-2006 to 10-10-2006. The results of the examination were declared on 2-12-2006. The record shows that in all, 4076 students had appeared in the examination out of whom 992 students were declared failed in different papers.
4. In the results published by the University, it was specifically mentioned that such of those students who wanted to attend personal identification for retotalling of their theory answer scripts should submit their applications on or before 13-12-2006. This personal identification was meant to enable the students to apply for retotalling of their answer scripts. Out of the 992 students who had failed, 436 students applied for retotalling of their respective answer scripts.
5. When the process of retotalling was going on, some representations were addressed to His Excellency, the Governor, who is Chancellor of the University, and the Hon'ble Minister for Medical, Health and Family Welfare as well as 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 undervaluation of answer scripts. In the complaints, it was stated that answer scripts of three papers i.e Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chemistry 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 had cleared the examination was low.
6. It is the case of the students that the Vice-Chancellor, after listening to their grievances, assured that he would verify the answer books and if necessary, get them re-examined.
7. Having regard to the nature of complaints received, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee of three expert professors on 3-1-2007 for reverification/revaluation/re-examination of answer scripts. The Committee undertook reverification of the answer scripts and recorded marks on printed slips of papers which were stapled at the top of answer scripts.
8. On the basis of reverification made by the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, the University declared revised results on 2-2-2007 and 294 students out of 436 students, who had applied for retotalling, were declared “Pass”.
9. The action taken by the Vice-Chancellor of retotalling and reverification of the answer sheets of the first year MBBS examination held in September/October 2006 was placed before the Executive Council for its ratification. The matter was considered by the Executive Council and the Council had approved the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor. The revised results were sent to the Principals of medical colleges.
10. Subsequent to the declaration of the results, after revaluation His Excellency, the Governor of the State, as well as the Minister for Medical, Health and Family Welfare and the Vice-Chancellor of the University received communications and complaints stating that irregularities were committed in the process of reverification. Because of the controversy generated in the media, His Excellency the Governor forwarded the complaints received by him to the Executive Council of the University for appropriate action. A meeting of the Executive Council of the University was convened to consider the action of retotalling and reverification of answer scripts relating to the first year MBBS examination held in September/October 2006.
11. The Executive Council resolved to ask the Government of Andhra Pradesh to constitute a High-Level Committee to go into the circumstances under which reverification 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 the first year MBBS course till the enquiry report was submitted and give intimation of the same to the Principals of medical colleges concerned. Accordingly, by letter dated 2-2-2007 the Principals of medical colleges were informed not to give effect to the results obtained on reverification of answer scripts of the first year MBBS examination.
12. In pursuance of the resolution of the 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 the High Court by the beneficiaries of the revaluation of answer scripts seeking a direction to permit them to attend the second year MBBS course.
13. 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 Government referred the matter to the Law Department and Medical Department of the State. The 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 29-3-2007, opined that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor permitting revaluation of answer scripts was not in accordance with the provisions of law/procedure.
14. According to the learned Advocate General, merely because certain representations/complaints were received from the students/parents of the students, the Vice-Chancellor ought not to have ordered recorrection of answer scripts, more particularly, when there is no provision to do so in the Act.
15. The learned Advocate General expressed the opinion that the University, being an autonomous body, there was no necessity for referring the matter to Government for the purpose of enquiring into the whole issue and, therefore, the very reference/request made by the University asking the Government to probe into the matter was not in accordance with the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (“the Act”, for short).
16. In view of the opinion of the learned Advocate General, the meeting of the Executive Council was convened on 2-4-2007. The Vice-Chancellor informed other members of the Executive Council that revaluation of answer scripts was ordered because of the pressure from the students who had failed and their parents.
17. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Executive Council agreed with the opinion of the learned Advocate General and unanimously cancelled the whole process of revaluation. The Executive Council was of the opinion that opportunity should be given to the failed students to reappear in the examination and, therefore, it directed the students who had failed in September/October 2006 examination to reappear in the examination which was scheduled to take place on 25-4-2007.
18. The students and their parents were of the opinion that the Executive Council was not justified in cancelling the whole process of revaluation, which was undertaken pursuant to the order of the Vice-Chancellor nor the Executive Council was justified in asking the students to reappear in first year MBBS examination, which was scheduled to be held on 25-4-2007. 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.
19. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor had power under Section 12(2) of the Act to appoint a committee for reverification of the answer scripts of the students 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 reverification at the behest of the Vice-Chancellor. In view of the abovementioned findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the students vide judgment dated 1-5-2007.
20. Feeling aggrieved, the Registrar of the University filed Writ Appeal No. 402 of 2007 and other cognate appeals. The 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 reverification of the answer scripts of the students and, therefore, the Executive Council was justified in cancelling the whole process of revaluation as well as directing the students to reappear in the first year MBBS examination, which was scheduled to take place on 25-4-2007. In view of these conclusions, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeals filed by the Registrar of the University giving rise to the instant appeals.
21. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also taken into consideration the documents forming part of the appeals.
22. From the record of the case it is evident that in all, 4076 students had appeared in the first year MBBS examination, which was held between 5-9-2006 and 10-10-2006. The results of the examination were declared on 2-12-2006 and 992 students were declared failed in different papers. Out of 992 students, who were declared failed, 436 students had applied for retotalling of the marks assigned by the examiners in three different papers. When this process of retotalling was going on, some representations were submitted to the University and the Vice-Chancellor on behalf of the students in the name of MBBS First Year Students' Parents' Association with complaints of improper and undervaluation of answer scripts.
23. The record shows that the Vice-Chancellor directed reverification of the answer scripts. On 3-1-2007 the Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee of three professors for reverification of answer scripts. The Committee undertook reverification and recorded marks on the printed slips of papers stapled at the top of the answer scripts. On the basis of the reverification undertaken by the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, the University declared revised results on 2-2-2007 by which 294 students out of 436 students, who had applied for retotalling, were declared “Pass”. Subsequently, the highest authorities of the University received communications and complaints that irregularities were committed in the process of reverification.
24. In the backdrop of the complaints, the matter was placed before the Executive Council for considering the question whether the action taken for the reverification of the answer scripts by the Vice-Chancellor of the University was valid. The Vice-Chancellor agreed before the Executive Council that he had ordered reverification under pressure and coercion from the students and their parents.
25. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Executive Council did not approve the action of the Vice-Chancellor directing reverification of the answer scripts and cancelled the whole process of reverification. The Executive Council was further of the opinion that opportunity should be given to the failed students to reappear in the examination and, therefore, it directed the students, who had failed, to reappear in the first year MBBS examination, which was scheduled to be held on 25-4-2007.
26. The Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power to order reverification of the answer scripts. Section 12(2) of the Act reads as under:
“12. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and 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.”
27. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides that the Vice-Chancellor may, if he is of the opinion that immediate 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 action taken by him on such matter. The proviso to sub-section (3) stipulates that if the authority concerned is of the opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final.
28. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the 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 conscious keeper of the University. He is the principal executive 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.
29. Section 30 of the Act confers power on the Executive Council to make statutes. In exercise of that power, the Executive Council has framed the Statutes of the University. Clause 1 of the Statutes deals with the status of the Vice-Chancellor and his powers and duties. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 1 of the Statutes provides that it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are 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, Ordinances and Regulations are observed by all concerned. The wording of sub-clause (3) of Clause 1 of the Statutes shows that a residuary power which is required to be exercised, in order to see that the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are duly observed, is vested in the Vice-Chancellor.
30. The Vice-Chancellor has the right to regulate the work and conduct of officers and other employees of the University. He has also emergency powers to deal with any untoward situation. The power conferred under Sections 12(2) and 12(3) is indeed significant. If the Vice-Chancellor believes that a situation calls for immediate action, he can take such action as he thinks necessary though in the normal course he is not competent to take that action. However, he must report to the authority or body concerned, which 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. 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.
31. As per the Statutes of the University, the Vice-Chancellor is a whole-time officer 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.
32. The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the judgment impugned should not be 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 is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, 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.
33. In Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383 Respondent 1 i.e Pravas Ranjan Panda appeared in the High School Certificate 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 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 HSC Examination, 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 scrutinise and recheck the answer scripts of examinees securing 90% and above marks in aggregate in HSC Examination, 2003 and if there was any change or variation in the marks the petitioner should be informed accordingly. The candidates secured less than 90% of marks in aggregate who had applied for rechecking and readdition of marks in certain answer papers had to be considered in accordance with the resolution of the Board for rechecking of marks.
34. A review petition was subsequently filed by the Board (in Board of Secondary Education case (2004) 13 SCC 383) wherein it was submitted that the Board shall face immense difficulties in scrutinising 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 examiners of the status of Chief Examiner would be required for re-examination of the answer books and some more examiners would be necessary to examine the subject of third language. However, the review petition was dismissed.
35. In appeal the Supreme Court (in Board of Secondary Education case (2004) 13 SCC 383) noticed that the High Court, though observed 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 direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in the marks. It was admitted before the Supreme Court that the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa did not make any provision of re-evaluation of answer books of the students.
36. The Supreme Court (in Board of Secondary Education case (2004) 13 SCC 383) was of the opinion that the question whether in the absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer books was examined by the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714. It was noticed by the Supreme Court that in the said decision it was held that in the absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer books no direction should be issued because a direction for re-evaluation of the answer books would throw many problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. Therefore, 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 unsustainable in law and set aside the same. The above decision 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 revaluation of answer sheets. It does not deal with the power of the Board to order re-evaluation of answer books if the factual scenario so demands.
37. Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statutes at the instance of the candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, 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.
38. There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters.
39. Under the circumstances, the plea advanced on behalf of the respondents that the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences had no authority to order re-evaluation 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 University had no power or jurisdiction to order the reverification of answer scripts. However, the facts indicate that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised power to order reverification of answer scripts under pressure and coercion from the students and their parents and not independently on merits.
40. As noticed earlier, 436 students had merely demanded retotalling of marks. If the Vice-Chancellor was of the opinion that revaluation of answer scripts was necessary, he should have directed revaluation of answer scripts of all 992 students who had failed and revaluation of answer scripts could not have been confined only to 436 students who had never applied for revaluation of their answer scripts, but had applied only for retotalling of their marks recorded on the answer scripts.
41. From the record it is evident that the 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 Parents' Association for reverification to find out whether there was any grain of truth in them. The record produced by the University does not give any indication of methodology adopted by the Committee for revaluation. Moreover, the members of the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor for revaluation of answer scripts had undertaken reverification of 1082 answer scripts and completed reverification in two days, which itself indicates that the said revaluation was not properly done and no credence could be given to the same.
42. It is worth noticing that the decision of the Executive Council to cancel the result of the students on the basis of reverification and giving an opportunity to the failed students to reappear in the first year MBBS examination was approved by the Vice-Chancellor himself. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in upholding the decision of the Executive Council to cancel the result obtained on reverification of answer scripts.
43. Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, has stated at the Bar that the University is inclined to hold supplementary examination of the students, who have yet to clear the first year MBBS examination. Therefore, Dr. N.T.R University of Health Sciences is hereby directed to hold supplementary examination of all students who have yet not cleared the examination of first year MBBS held in September/October 2006.
44. Pursuant to the interim orders, 294 students were permitted to prosecute studies in second year MBBS. If any student/students fails/fail in supplementary examination of first year MBBS examination, the declaration of the results of such candidate/candidates who appear for second year MBBS be withheld or their further course of study be decided based on the Rules and Regulations of the University applicable to such students. It is clarified that the abovementioned direction would apply only to those students who had appeared and failed in the first year MBBS examination held between 5-9-2006 and 10-10-2006.
45. 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, therefore, the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert