Writ petition challenging low marks in examination appeals for intervention in expert marking process. Court refused interference, citing deference to examiners and lack of evidence for manipulation.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4905 of 2020
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner claims that he has made an application under Right to Information Act in regard to the question papers. The petitioner has already taken proceedings under Right to Information Act.
The petitioner has filed the writ petition in "hope" of getting 130/200 marks. The marking is done by a competent expert body. Merely on basis of "hopes and dreams", the Court cannot be called to interfere in the marking system.
There is authority in point where the courts have accorded deference to the opinion of experts. There is presumption of correctness in favour of an expert who has given his opinion in discharge of his official functions. Marking of the answersheets is one such function. The burden of disproving the presumption is upon the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to do so in his pleadings.
No perversity in the marking has been established on the foot of which the court legitimately interfere in the opinion of the examiner. The allegation of "manipulation" in the answerbook is liable to be disbelieved. There was no reason for the examiner to "manipulate" the answerbook of the petitioner. No such reason is established from the
pleadings. Further merely because the examiner has scored off certain marks and awarded lesser marks thereafter, does not persuade me to substitute the opinion of the examiner with another opinion.
Moreover, respondents in their counter affidavit have specifically stated that the earlier marks awarded were evaluated by the Chief Examiner in his capacity as moderator. The Chief Examiner has scored off the earlier marks and awarded fresh marks in the process of moderation. The process of moderation has been adopted to achieve maximum uniformity and consistency in the process of evaluation.
No provision for rechecking of the answerbook has been brought to the notice of the Court.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Dhananjai
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Court can interfere in the marking system of examination papers based on mere hopes of higher marks.
Whether the process of moderation by the Chief Examiner justifies altering previously awarded marks.
Whether pererversity or manipulation in answer sheets was established by the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Praveen Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
