Allowed

Dr Devender Banavath (Hall Ticket No.18102009001) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/27869/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the electronic evaluation of post-graduate admission exams without putting tick marks or using digital tools on answer sheets, contrary to the High Court's principles in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar case. The court held the action arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 21, and directed re-evaluation by new examiners.

What did the court decide?

Supplementary examinations deferred; respondents directed to re-evaluate answer scripts failing the exams using digital tools (stylus) with direct ticks/marks and remarks on the scripts by new examine

Dr Devender Banavath (Hall Ticket No.18102009001)… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

FRIDAY,^{THE TWENTY FOURTHDAY OF^DECEX/BER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEB'VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETIT]ON^{NO: 27869 OF 2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr, Devender^{Banavath(Hall Ticket No'18102009001)} S/o B. Hanumanthu,^{aged 38 Years'} . nlo ffrt^{No. G4, Sri Sai Sugunane-s]!e^1c11'} euiOf,u Nagar^{Colony, Hyderabad-500 098'}

¶10

Dr. NimmaYogitha^{Reddy (HallTicketNo 18114011005)'} - D/o Nitn*. Suyodhan Reddy' aged 29 years' i.tto. zs-zzlo,'Kakatiyanagar'^{R C Purnam'} Hyderabad-502^{032, TelanganaState}

¶11

Dr. Durgam - Slo Orrt.tn^{Jayanth Riiamouli' (Hall aged about Ticket No^18105013002)38 years'} nl" i-s-n,^{GandhariManial' Nizxamabad-S031 14'} Telangana^State'

¶12

Dr. Kommidi^{Laxma Reddy (Hall TicketNo' 1 8102009003)} Slo f. Mahendra^{Reddy' aged about 32 years'} nyo i. r'ro.^{2-2'61 121, Amberpet' Hyderabad-S0o0 1 3'} Telangana^State' i

¶13

Dr. Kammeta^{Sravanth Kumar (Hall-TicketNo',18107001005)} ,

¶14

' Si" Sniuitri, ageO about 31 yeis' R/o H'No ,11-4-448' I

¶15

Red Hills,^{H'yderabad-S0O004' Telanganastate'} i I

¶16

Dr. Dr.^{PranayPonnuru(HallTicketNo' 18113013001)'18113013001)'} S/o P. GoPal,^{aged 31 31} Yearsl - -.-. iI

¶17

Dr. Dr.^{PranayPonnuru(HallTicketNo' 18113013001)'18113013001)'} S/o P. GoPal,^{aged 31 31} Yearsl - -.-. R/o H,No.'^{27-16t22t5211'WSK-74'} - West Sri Krishna^{Nagar Colony' Safilguda'} Hyderabad-500^{056, Telangana State'}

¶18

1 I 7. Dr. Chennagouni^{Anvesh(ioud(Hall TicketNo' 18111011002)} i I S/o Ch.^{Ramaswamy' aged about 36 years'} I R/o H.No.^{4-8-3814, Chennagouni Street'} ftayattrnagar,^{Ranga Reddybistrict' Telagana State'}

¶19

Dr. Allu^{Rajasekhar(HallTicketNo 18112001002)} S/o A. Pulla^{Rao, aged about 30 years'} Gandhi BoYs^{Hostel, Musheerabad'} Hyd"rabad-soo^{025' Telangana State'}

¶20

, I Hyd"rabad-soo^{025' Telangana State'} :i g. Dr. Bandarupalli Bindusha Bandarupalli Bindusha^{(Hall Ticke^t No 18102008001)Ticke^t No 18102008001)No 18102008001)18102008001)} D/o B. Seetharamaiah' Seetharamaiah'^{aged about 30 years'30 years'years'} R/o Flat No.^{302, Viiaya Sai Pride Apartmenls'Viiaya Sai Pride Apartmenls'Pride Apartmenls'Apartmenls'} , Rnnapurna^{Colony,'Peerzadiguda'Hyderabad-S00039'} Telangana^State'

¶21

g. Dr. Bandarupalli Bindusha Bandarupalli Bindusha^{(Hall Ticke^t No 18102008001)Ticke^t No 18102008001)No 18102008001)18102008001)} D/o B. Seetharamaiah' Seetharamaiah'^{aged about 30 years'30 years'years'} R/o Flat No.^{302, Viiaya Sai Pride Apartmenls'Viiaya Sai Pride Apartmenls'Pride Apartmenls'Apartmenls'}

¶22

I : i I i t

¶23

I I

¶24

ja (Hail ricket No. 18112001024) ,0. 3i;.j,Eri:1?..:lq! rJlu :.r<. Dnntvasan. rqed.2-g years R/o Flat NO. .104, ' " - ' ''" 'v ': 'lJ [lLto:nqq*:,^{vrja1Jpuri coiony,} Hyderabad-SO0 0i7,^-ela6g3nq (161..

¶25

tt !1 [,S. Dhishan Sai Ha[ Ticket No. 1B1ZoOO2oo2)" ""'"". !/o^{K J Srinivasulu,i ged} about zg-v"r rrl

¶26

R/o H.No. 1o_11_171t-vztoztz, rr.i iro iiz Emerald Block. Shant )asrira;'Apa;m;;;: Namatagundu, Secun lerabad_SfjO OOS,^'"' Telangana State.

¶27

,2 Pi: B; Batakrishna (H: I Ticket No. 18105005002) :/o^{rtang31ah,aged a ,out32 years,} :Tt1t.^{Viilage, AbdurapurmeiMandat,} Kangareddy District, F n No.501S12, Telangana State.

¶28

Petitioners

¶29

¶30

The State of Telanqana

¶31

F.uq,^{b{ its principa-tSe(.erary,}

¶32

Medical, Health & Famil. Welfare Department. Secretariat Buildings, H1 Jerabad.

¶33

Kaloji Narayana Rao Un rersity of Health Sciences, represented by its Regis _ar, warangal, Telangana S rte.

¶34

3, The Registrar,

¶35

Kaloji Narayana Rao Uni ,ersity of Health Sciences. Warangal, Telangana St rte.

¶36

The Vice Chancellor

¶37

Kaloji Narayana RaoUn l ersity of Health Sciences Warangal, Telangana Stte

¶38

Respondents

¶39

Petition under Articr > 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the rffidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a wrt' order or di ection more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the ac on of the respondents 2 to 4 (i) in getting petitioners, answer scripts evaruated in 1e digitar evaruation process by not putting tick marks, "x" marks' makrng remarks, rrc, on the d.gitar answer scripts by using digrtar toors like styrus' etc, in respect o the post Graduate courses, Examinations herd in the month of July / August, 202 contraty to the principres raid down in Dr. p.Kishore Kumar Vs. State of A.p. 201 6(6) ALf 408) and Dr.J. Kiran Kumar and others Vs. state of A'P' 2017 (6) ALT 213 and (ii) in not arowing the petitioners to physicary verify their answer scripts anc arso in not furnishing copies of their answer scripts as highly i'egar, arbitrary, irrati rnar, void and opposed to the principres of Natural Justice apart from being violar ve of Articres 14 and 210f constitution of rndia.r

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to conduct supplementary examinations in respect of Post Graduate Medical Courses pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to produce petitioners' answer scripts in respect of the examinations conducted in.the month of July / August, 2021 belore this Honourable Court for verification of the same pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. NAGARJUNA BABU

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO, S.C. FOR K.N.R.U.H.S,

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

¶50

¶51

IIO \OL]II,ABLE SIiI JT]S1'ICE I}. V'IJAYSI.]N REI)DY WRIl- I'E]'11'lON \o.27u(r9^()t 2l)21

¶52

OIIDEIl

¶53

Ag r,rieved bl the action ol'r'csponclcrrt Nos.l to :l Itele rn irt not lbllori'ing tl're gLridelines / prrnciplcs laitl clori n br the c.rstrvhile co lI n]()n {igh CoLrrr fbr the State ol"l'c-lurrsana and tbr the State ol i\nclhra Iraclc'sh in Dr. l). Kishorc Kurn:rr r,. Slate of A.l).1 arrcl Dr, J, K iran Kumar r. State ol' A.1,.: :tS illegal. arbitrary and violative rf Articles l4 and 2l ol'the Constitution o1' India. this rvrit petition is filed by the petitioners.

¶54

The case of the petitioners is that directions given to responder, Nos.2 to 4 in evaluating ans\ver scripts in the digital evaluatior process bv pLrtting tick nrarl<s. 'r' ntalks, rnaking rernarks on the clil ital rnsuer scripts br usinlr clieirll tools lil<c. st1 lus etc.. in respcct ol thc I)ost^{(irltluatc('()Lrsci} .'rruninrl.ior'rs hcltl in tltc nronth ol' .luly^,' nr.,*r.,.t l0l I rilc not lir lorr ctl hr lhcm errcl thc petitioners were not alloued to phl'sically r e'r'il_v thcir ansrver scripts and also v ere not furnished copies of theit' itnswel scl'ipts cotltrar\ to the albre-r:flerred nvo decisions of'tlte erstrllrile colrrrltolt Iligll^Court.

¶55

t here is not much controversy^{regarding tircts of the case,as} such, the s rme are not discussed in detail.

¶56

'^{20l6(6) AL'408)} ':on^{(o) el- u r:}

¶57

¶58

There is no dispute that evaluation of answer scripts of the petitioners. s lro har c appcarccl in l)ost Graduate exarrrinations, u,as clone throLrgh digital ploccss. T hc rcspondents have not lollo,"ved the principles laid dot,n in thc a fbrc-r'e l'erred trvo decisions ol' the erstwhile colnnror'r IIiglr Court *'hereunder tlrere rvas a clcar direction that answer scripts havc to be evaluatcd by au,arding nrarks or-r digital answer scripts by using digital tools like stylus etc., and instead marks were awarded on a separate script (rnarks reporl) attached to the answer scripts. Petitioner Nos.1, 5 and I t have filed their respective Post Graduate examinations with 'l' mark less, petitioner No.6 failed with'2'marks less, petitionerNos.3,8,9 and l0 failed with'3'marks less, petitioner No.l2 failed with '4' marks less, petitioner Nos.4 and 7 failed with '5' rrarks lcss and petitioner No.2 laiied with^'6' rnarks less. l-lrus. thc petitioncrs harc fhilc'd with a slight ntarr:.in betuccn^I and^(r rrra rli s.

¶59

Hcard Sri [).V. Nagariuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners. learned^(lor erntrent Pleader lor Medical and Health and learned Additional Advocate General for Sri A. Prabhakar Rao. leamed standing counsel for Kaloj i Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (r'espondent Nos.2 to 4), and perused the material on record.

¶60

Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, leamed counsel for the petitioners. has subrritted that all the petitioners have failed rvith a slight margin ancl sor.ne of the studer-rts who got one rrark less rvere

¶61

¶62

also declared fr iled. E'en if rhe cancriclate rails irr o.e rraper. rre has to re-u,rite all tl e papers. l'he evalLration proccss is a ntockerr,. llitherto, manr al evaluation was ailopted and cligitalizccl c'aluation was stalled in I 0l 6.^'I'lre ansrver scripts are subjcctcd to scanning and scanned answe ' scripts are being e'alr"rated by 4 (lbur) e xaminers indicating mark; on the script merno, which is annexed to the script, is a known phen rmenon for correcting OTes and not lbr SA Type Questions. In )r. P. Kishore Kumar,s case (Supra l), it was held that judicial^.eview is not unavailable. The judgment in Dr. P. Kishor e Kumar's case (Sr-rpra I ) u.as fbllorved in the subsequent judl ments o1'this Court in Dr. J. Kiran Kumar's case (Supra 1) and '.P. No. I3965 ot'l0lt) rnri batch uncl \,.1) Nos.22.l6 and 21 l2 ot'20. I . I hc ordc-r datccl 05.0..10 t9 in \ .l), \o. 11965 ol. 2019 rvas confi tred by the Divisiorr []r.nclt ol'rhis ( oLrr.r irr \i.,,\ No.7-s7 of'1019 .,irle.jLrdgment clarccl l5 09.l0ll

¶63

On the other hand. the learnecl Additional Advocate General has subrnitted th rt there is no settled law on re-evalLlation. No relief is sought in the r ,rit petition touching upon evolution ol any law. The main stress of the petitioners is that the principles laid down by the erstwhile cor rmon High Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar,s case (Supra l) are no followed. The petitioners have not pointed out any violation with rt lerence to statutor)' regulations. There is no rcttio ttec'itlenli laid d rr.r. n irt Dr. P. Kishore Kunrar's casc (Supra l). 'f hc'r'e arc no plc Lclirtss in the ririt nclition stltin!. tlrJt ilns\L.r shccts

¶64

¶65

have not been^{properly evaluated. The observation of this Courtin} Dr.P.KishoreKuntar'scase(Suprait.)isobiterdictaandno|aralio deciclendi.^{-lhe petitioners havecome beforethis Court on a} nrisplaced syrttpatltr'.^{The allegation o1' ttrockery is unlounded'} Thcre is tto tl]atet^{ial to cstablishthat evaluatorshave Violatcd an)'} rulcs. What is larr^{is to bc interpt'cted bl' the Courtsar-rd thc} observations ntade^{in Dr. P. KishoreKunrar's case (Supra l) cannot} he treated as lan^{which has only a persuasive value and not} precederrtialvalue.Thesuggestionsgivenareforfutureevaluation and they are^{recommendatory and do not have bindingeffect'} Re-evaluation^{is not permissibleunderlaw and it is an admitted fact} thatwhatissoughrinthewritpetitionisre-evaluation.Direction given by the erstwhile^{common High Court for re-evaluationhas been} set aside by the^{SuPrerre Cour1.}

¶66

In reply^{to the argutlentsolthe learnedAdditionalAdvocate} General. the^{learncd counsel l'or the petitioners hassubtnittedtl-rat the} order in Dr. P.^{KishoreKrtnlar'scasc(Sr-rpra l) wasinrplenrented} alicr thc^{sarrc \ ils Lrphelcl l''1 thc [)ir'isiclllBer-rchMandatory} directiorrs^{issLredin l)r. P. Kishore Kumar's case (Sr.rplal) have not} been cornplied^{with. lt was held by the Hon'bleSuprerr.reCourt irl} Sahiti v. Chancellor,^{Dr. N.T.R. Universityof HealthSciencesl} that power of^{ViceChancellorcannot be curtailed' In the judgment in}

¶67

'^{(zooq)t scc ssq}

¶68

!/.1). .. 1 19 ,: ol' l() l(.). tli'ce Lir),s \ e r.e i:,:Lrr,tl l. li,llorr tlrc gLri(le ]iens in I . Kishorc Kurnar.s casc (SLll)r.l l).

¶69

The lbllowing observarions are made in Dr. p. Kishore Kumar's case (Supra l ):

¶70

*21. The online evaluation as illustrated above when is pointed out to the representative ol service provi ler, the representative has fhirly admitted rhat the sr anned answer sheets produced in the batch of cases shotv no traco ol'c\ aluiltion hr tlie [-_xarlincrs. lt is peninent to rcrnarli rhat thc Lrtilization ol. avail; tle technologr such .as Abotle. pl)F tbrnrirt. Wact.l n. Str lus r"-tc.. rr ouid har e ccrtirinlr hclpctl the [-lnvir^'sit), to achicr c thc ob.lcctir cs rr,hich it uantr,(l to acl ie.r'e bv oniitrc cr,aluation. [ ]sc ol' ar.ailablc tools :ould have litrnished conrplctc aceurlte ancl reliabl : [)iacnostic lt!.ports. rhc CoLrr.r lras exanri tcd the dclicicncr in onlinc ctlrluation arrti to that e:tent. it is not thc casc ol t.cspondents tllat judiciz lrevieu, is unavailablc.^-l o the lintited extcnt judicir t review is permittecl parricularly by fbllowing ratio lecidendi of (1) Sahiti's case (2) Adiva Bando ndya's case, (3) D.Suvankar's case, the discusr ion is concluded. Further the Script Marks Report copied and posted in respect of a few answer shets⁽ oncur rvith thc omissions and cornrnissions poinlet out bv the petitioners.

¶71

¶72

'I \ ,rr 0rtiirtc cr illUlti()n elrrr lrc i tl.rlcDrcDte Ll lirr lull exl, ttirrations. lltc l ''r lesl)()n(lcnt rc,. ierrs llrc nrliastr rctLrre and lecltrrical eorrrplrtibilrlr ol lnlir e cruluitt on liiciliticr ut uil eellr'e: illt(l irl,pr,1.)rilte

¶73

¶74

¶75

further directions to all colleges/ students are issued so that the change now introduced is made a rule or practice in the University. From the resolution dated 3 1.08.20 16. it can be said that the Vice Chancellor has obtaincd ex post.facto approval for the midway change liom ntanual to online evaluation and by the crpcrience ttori -eained. and in vieu ol the principle laicl dori n it Saltiti .r cnse ( I supra). this Courl is of the vicrr that thc Vicc Chanccllor ol2"d rcspondcnt I Inivcrsil) is cntitletl to take stops as arc recluired fbr accuratc ciiagrnoslic rcports lrtr thc prognosis^I discasc rlou colnltlaincd in tltis halch ol'rrrit pctitions.

it.

(a)

(b) ...

(c)

(d) The legitimate expectation ofa student is that the answers written are at least looked at and appreciated fbr cvaluation. In thc case on hantl. with the illustration givcn ahovc, this Court is of the Iierv that Script Ansrvcrs Ileports flre lrcate(l as cvalrration of ansrvcr scripls antl no rrratcrial is placcd lo s:ltisl'' thal thc er.aluation of ansrvcr scripts. in fact. harl tal<cn placc and Script Marks Report is the sunrnrarv ofsuch evaluation."

¶81

In Dr..l. Kiran Kunrar's casc (Supra 2). the follor.ving observations

¶82

are ntade:

¶83

"24. ... ... the marks rvere filled up in a separate marks shect and that is the reason why when an opportunity was given to the candidates to verifu

¶84

the r answer sheets. the digital shects^{crc not} shoun to 1lem, but only manual scripts rvere sho'n. lf^the dig tal evaluation method is transparent. each ansrver scr lt evaluated by the exarniner by trsing the^tools pro^rided lor it should be saved lor luture review in ord:r to see whether the examiner has applied^his mir I while evaluating the ansrver scripts or not.''

¶85

10,^'lt e decisions in l)r. P. Kishorc Kttnt:tr's casc^(StrpraI )

¶86

and f)r. J. B iran Kumar's case^(Sttrpa 2)^{u ere lilllo"vedin W.P} No.13965 ol 2019 and batch u,hich ',vas clisposed ot'on^05.08.2019 arrd the sanre \'as conllrnrcd br the [)ir ision []errclt^{videjtrclsnlent} detcrl 15.09.1^tl9 in \'.... \o.757 ol l019.

¶87

l l . lh ' learrrcti couttsel lirl Lhe^pe titiottcts^{hltsclt as tr itttetltion} ol this Court to the subrnissions^rrade by^{the learned Additional} Advocate Ger eral in W.P. Nos.2236^{and 2412 of 2021 whichwas} disposed of o r 06.04.2021^{whereunder a categorical statement was} made that an wer^{scripts of the petitionerswouldbe evaluatedin} terms of the <rders^{passedby this Court in W'P No l3965 of 2019} dated 05.08.2(^19.

¶88

ll Tt: learnecl^{Additiorral ,'\dvocate(lenclal relied orr the} dccisiorlsot.t]eI']on.bleSttpl.ctrrcCotrrtirrSarrchitl}ansalr,..ltlint .A.rlnrission I oartlr.^{I)ire ctorrttc ol' l'-ilnl l'e stir als r '(iattrlr} ,A.sh$,in .Jain: Ilarncsh^{chntl l)agar . llanre sh$:.rIi1]:li"l)rrtrttotl} Kttntnr Sri astava^{ '^{C'hairnran'llih:rr I'trblicService}}

¶89

'I (1012) I SCC l5; '^{(zool)* scc llr} o (2005)4 scc 772

¶90

¶91

¶92

Commissionr^{Patna"All lndiaCouncilfor Tcchnical Educationv'} Surinder^{KumarDhawan8' and Sahitiv' Chancellor'Dr' N'T'R'} UniversitY^{of Health Sciences9'}

¶93

¶94

In Sanchit^{Bansal'scase(Supra 4)' the Hon'ble Supreme Courthas} held^{as under:}

¶95

"1.1 ln Mahalashtra^{Stalc []oarc1ol' secotrdaryand} 'tleatir\11^{ I'a rit^osll l lrgitcr Sec()ll(lal) r '(r .r-1....,. lllt'r1';.ttr.'tt'l,lt^{\rr(r " 'r"'l"ttrirltlrrr' lrl')S-irI} .'.'.,| Sf⁽ J,1''P^{)oN-r 'lr'rr..-'}}

¶96

"29. ...thc^{Coult shoulclbc extremel'vreluctant to} substitutc^{its or'vnvier'vs as to what is wise' prudent} and^{propcr 'n relation to acadcmicmatters in} prel'crencc^{to thoseli)rnlulatedh1" prottssionaltnen} possessing^{technical cxpertise andrich experienceof} actual^{day-to-dayworkingof educational institutions} and the^{departments controllingthem.''}

¶97

In All^{lndiaCouncilfor Technical Educationv'} Surinder^{Kumar Dhawan this Courtheld: [(2009) I I} SCC 726P.^{732,Paras l6 & 171}

¶98

"l(r. llic c()tlrls ilrc^{rlcithcr ccluippcil tlor' harcthc} acu(l!'tr'lie^{orrcehtlical iraclilrtltttlti tostl[rstitLltc} tltcnr:clr^{e. irr pllcu (rlstattlt()r\prrrlcssitlrlai} tcchrtieal^{irodics lltllltkc dccisiotts in acatlctllic} nllrtlcl\il1(rl\illr::t'ttttlltltlsatltlqtrrtlitroltctltrlieal e.lrr..rti.'r'.^{II llr' !'rrlll' 'l'lll 'lltt rl'lillillq f(lllil'l'l'} lir,ttl^{irll\lir illltr:rlirl'tittrti"tl: {'l'ttlJcl'lt:} 1o pcrtltit

¶99

'^{(zooa) o scc I t+}

¶100

'(2009)^{tt scc l2o}

¶101

'^{(2oos) t scc:ss}

¶102

¶103

¶104

cour ses of their choice. either^{for their convenience} or :o alleviate hardship or to^{provide better} opp rrtunities, or because they^{think that one courseis} equ. I to another. without realising^{the repercussions} on t re field of technical education^{in gcneral,it will} lear to chaos in educatittn^{and deteriorationin} star lards ol'education.

¶105

l7 Tha rolt^()l .\t(tlttlot.\ t'.t:ltt'rl^{btxlic'.s ,))l (ltrc'ttliott} LI)ltt tllr 1t)f. t);^{t t)ltt} l.tt! t ',^{1i ,/i.'iill, ,} 'r1^,7 '1'r7711' tttlL ll it i.\ tt tlltL'.\liott^ttl t'tlttt'LtlitttlLii^{l)()l;(.'t)1' tt'"} i.s.it, ' ili|r,,1|ill.q Ltttttlt'ttti,^{1)lLtl/ft. lll( tt)ltrl. ie(',t.) lltct luttttls^()/i ll dtl\ l)t^{t);'it)tt t)1 !tt\ 1"'t} it11 i1','1 t" lutt htts lo he ittl(t Pt^{(lcLl ttpl;lierl t)r t)tt'tt.loi(L'Ll.} vvitt reference lo ot .onneL'!ccl^{v'illt aLlttt'crtioritht'} cou ts will .\lep iiz.^{" (errphasis supplied)}}

¶106

In Directora le of Film^{Festiv:rls'scase(SLrpra5),thc IIon'ble} Supreme Cou t has held^{as under:}

¶107

"16 The scope of .iudicial^{revieu' o1' governmentttl} pol .:-"- is no\ \'!-ll dellned. Courts^{tlo ll)t illld c.lll11ol} ac1 as Appcllate^{,\uthoritiescrrrtllitlitlqthc} cor eotncss- stritabilitl ittltl^{approptiltetless olil} pol cr'. nor ilre eotlrts ci irdrisors^{l() thc c\rctlti\c oll} nra .crs o1'^{policl shich tltc crecutire i: ctttitlctl tt'} lirr rulatc. llle sctrllc^rrl .ltrtlicial^{rer ierlrrllctl} cxi nirtine tr^{policr ol tlle (rore|rltltctlliito ehctl'} rrlr tircr ii \ i()L:lLl\ tlle^{ItLtttlrtlllellL,Lli:l:t-L'l llri} eililctts 0r iol)l-r()se (i ti) lile Il()i'irrtt' trltlt' ( ) \ttltlti')ll. ,,r t.'1'p,'...tl lLi .rll\l.rltllrrl 1r;''1^i' 'r11 "r rla rrtestll arbittnrr.^{t)llll5a,,,,,(.'11111!11'c19rri:lt} pol c1 either oll lhc^{glotllldthaL it is dfrollcous or ol)} the ground that^a better.^{c llirer or r'viscr alternativeis} avi ilable. Legality^{of the policy.and not the rvisdom}

¶108

¶109

¶110

or sotlltchlcss^{ol the policl'. is the sub.iect oliudicial} reviel^(r'iclc Asil'Ilanrced^{r. State of J&K1989Supp} (2) SCC 364. Sitaram Sugar Co^{Ltd vUnionol} India⁽ 1990) 3^{SCC 223. KhodayDistillcries Ltd' v'} State of Karnataka(1996)^{10 SCC 304'BALCO} Employees' Union^{v. Unionol India(2002)2 SCC} 333, State of^{Orissa v' Gopinath Dash(2005)13 SCC} 495: 2006 SCC^{(L&S) 1225 and Akhil Bharat} Goseva Sangh^{(3) v. State of A.P.(2006) 4 SCC 162)'}

¶111

In Ramesh Chancl^{Daga'scase(Supra 6), the Hon'ble Surpeme}

¶112

Cor:rt has hcld^{as rrndcr:}

¶113

"( onstrttcIiott ol the luc]glncn1

¶114

A .luclgrttcnt.^{as is rvell knorvn. is not1o bc readas} a staLutc. A .ittdgnrcnt.^{it js tritc" trrtst bc construed} upon rcading^{thc sarre as a whole For the said} purpose the attcndant^{circumstancesmay also be} taken into^{consideration. (lslarnic Acaderr-ry ol} Education^{v. state of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC697,} Zee Telefllrns^{Ltd. v. Unionof India (2005) 4 SCC} 649 and P.S.^{Sathappanv' AndhraBank Ltd' (2004)} 11 SCC 672)."

¶115

In Pramod Kumar^{Srivastava'scase (Supra 7), the Hon'bleSupreme} Couft has held^{as undcr:}

¶116

t) ... It is tlrc spccilic casc ()l tllc⁽ otrlttlissiotl tllltl^itl ()t(lct t(J lrelri.'i e :LLell 1111 lrhlcclirc.^{a cclltlali5cd} s\stcnl^()l cvtlllitli()11^{oiallstct-hotrksis acloirlerl} rrhcrcin dillilcrrL cratl.tinets cratlitlc^{thc atlslrcr-} hooks on thc basis^{ol'tllotlclalls\ors} llrcpalecl^{111 tlrc} I Icacl l;ratttirtcr^lr ith^{thcassistallcco1' other}

¶117

¶118

¶119

exarr iners. It was pleaded in the letters patent appeal prefe red by the Coramission and which fact has not been lisputed that the model answer was nor supplied to th( t.vo teachers of Patna Science Coliegc.^'l'hcrc can t: a variation ol'standartl in a*ardinq rntrrks bv dill'er :nt exantincrs. I hc rlanncr in u hich lhe answ 'r-hortks \crL' g()t crirltrirtctl. tltc ntalks irrrirrdcd therc I cannot tr,,' ttcltc(l As siter()5llncl :rntl cousr.lr.lcntl. thc tiilcclirrn issLrcd br lltc lclrrncri Sinel .ltrtlgc t0 thc⁽ 0trrrrris:i()l) t() ltcitt tlrc rr:irrl,: rrl thc a1 pcllant in^(jeneral Seicnce plper a: (r3 cunnol be^jus :ilied.

¶120

ln All India louncil for Technical Education's case (Supra 8). the Hon'ble Sup::rre Court has held as under

¶121

" l 7. I he role of statutory expert bodies on education and r( le of courts are well defined by a sirnple rule. If it is question of educational policy or an issue invoh ing academic mattcr. the courts kecp their hands otl. Il anl provision ol'lalv or principlc ol. larv has t,, be interpreted. lpplied or enfbrcc(l. \,ith relerc Lcc 1o or c()llr)cctc(l rrith ctluctrtion. e()trrts \ill :lcp t. lrr l)r. .l.l'. KLrlslrrcshthu r .^{('harreclllr.} AIlahi bud []nir crsitr this L rrtrrt obscn erl:⁽ l9ltU i SCC - 19. pp 42.1 attLl {1(r. g-.x1115 I I lrrd I7 r

¶122

"l l. Judges nlusl not rush in rihcle c/crl educat onists f'ear to tread...

¶123

.. While there is no absolute bar. it is a rule 01' pruder ce that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisir ns of academic bodies."

¶124

¶125

¶126

J'hc eLridelirles^{issuecl in Dr' I'' KishoreKttnlar'scase} (Supra l) and Di.^{J. KiranKumar'scasc (Strpra 2) havebeen} lollowed^{in the several subsecir'tentdecisions'The respondentsherein} have implemented^{such guidelinesand evaluated answerscripts as} and when aggrieved^{students have approachedth is Coutt'}

¶127

The contention^{of the learnedAdditionalAdvocate General} that the decision^{in Dr. P. KishoreKumar's case (Supra1) is onlyan} obiter dicta^{and not ratio decidendi cannot be sustained'} The decisions^{in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar'scase (Supra i)and} Dr. J. Kirarl^{Kuamr's case (Supra 2) have been consistently} lollou,ed^{arrcl havc attalnccl linalitl' lt rrouldhc too late in the order} o1-thccla1,toco]ltelldthattlrcollset.raticltlsirrtlrcsaidclecisitlttsllar'e to bc trcated onlr^{as att ol'titetclicta and Ilot as a rotio tlec'idcttdi} ln Arun Kumar^{Agarual r'' State of N'll'r0' the llon'ble Supt'ettre} Court uade^{the tbllorvirrgobsel'vations:}

¶128

"22. According^{to l'Vords and Phrases'Perntanent} Edn.. Vol.^{l2-A. the terrn "direction" means a} guiding or authoritativc^{lnstruction. prescription'} order, command.

¶129

23, To sum up,^{the directionissuedby the Court is in} the nature of a comtnand^{or authoritative instruction} which conternplates the^{perfonnanceof certain duty} or act hy a^{personupon whom it has been issued'} The direction should^{be specific, simple,clear and} .just^{ancl properdepending upon the factsand}

¶130

'n^{€n,'l ) I I tc( rn,}

¶131

'---

¶132

¶133

( irculnstancL's ol- thc case lrut it shoLrld not bc viluue ( f s\ cclllllg

¶134

2 i, Acetrrdin-g trr I). lilrllrn;rtllr .\ir rrr': . ltitLtt.t ttl I tt L,.,,.,,,r , \nl I tlrr.. .'{,{,i, ille e \lrlc\i()ll " rbscrr ation ' ntL'ans il

¶135

" iew, reflection: remark: statcmenti obscrr,erl truth or lacts: remarks in specch or writing in rel'erencc ro s( mething observed".

¶136

2(. llharton's Law Lexicon (l4th Edn.. 1993) defines th term^"obiter dictum" as an opinion not necessitry to a Judgment; an observation as to thc law rnade by a . udge in the course of'a case, but not necessary to its decision, and therefore, ol no binding etfect: often oa ed as obiter cliotum.^'a rerlark bv thc rr av,.

¶137

2'7. Black's Lurt Di<.tiontrr.t. (9th E(Lr.. 200r)) de finr_.s thc tcrm^"obitcr tlicturtr" as:

¶138

()hit(t (li(tlt)t. ,..)Lrrlieiirl c()nlnlet l nLrtli rrlrile , elirerin! ir lLrtlieilrl ,r1ri11i1r11. l)ul ()ne tl itt i. l ltnecessilr'\ l() llta (le( i.ii,rt rn tlle rit\e ilt(i I letcli)rc ll()l l.r'!rr(lrnLlirl tlrlllt,iLrrlr it nriLr l'e r .rttsitlcretl l)ersuir5i. ). ( )lie I \lt()t Lcnc(l I t tliclttnt ctr. less cornrtronlr. obitcr. .

¶139

'Strictly speaking an "obiter dicturn" is a rerrark made or opinion expressed by a^judge. in his decision upon a cause, "by the way"-that is. incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question belore the court: or it is any ;tatement ol' larv cnunciated b) the .ludge or :otrrt rrrerel) h1 rrlrr t,l' illrr:tratirrrr. .rrgurrcnt. rnalogy. or suqecstion.... lr.r thc corrrnrrrn spcech

¶140

¶141

¶142

ns^oi . a\l^{suc\r extralLrdicia\ expresslo} ol'^{la\ \ ct's} obiIeI clic!a".^or '.\rc rclcrleL\o as \cu'.t..tPttrti'tr iiictl^{. thc:et\ o} lcl'1'ls bcirrg ru sc^ci itttc^{rchlttr lclt-'\r ''-'}

¶143

fhe^{conceptol''dicta''has been discussed} \n l'lalsburv's^{Lawso-[ ErtgLand'4th Edn' (Reissue)'} Vol. 26"^{l'ara 574 asthr'rs:}

¶144

"5'74.^{Diclo.'-Slatelrents whichare not necessary} to the^{decision, which go beyondthe occasionand} lay down^{a rule that it is unnecessary for the} purpose in^{hand are generally termed 'dicta' They} have no^{bindingauthorityon anothercourt'} although^{theymay havesomepersuasiveefficacy'} Mere^{passing remarksof a Judge are knownas} ,obiter dicta'. whilst considered enunciations^of the Judge's^{opinion on a point not arising lor} decision.^{anci so not part oi the ratio decidendi'} hai,e becn^{telrrecl 'JLrdicral clicta' A third type ol} tlictuttt ttlav^{ctlrlsist itt a slalctllclltbv a 'ludgeas to} nhat has l.tcctl donc^{in othcr cases uhich hal'e not} bcctt rcltortecl.

¶145

ln State^{oJ Hart,ctnct v. Ranbir} [(2006)^{5 SCC 167} : 2006 SCC^{(L&S)10121,this Courthas discussed} the concept ol the^{"obiter dictum" thus: (SCCpp'} 17l-72, para 13)

¶146

*13. ... A decision, iL is well settled, is an authority lor what it decides^{and not what can} logically be deduced thereliom.^{The distinction} betr'veen a dicta and obiter is well known.^Obiter dicta is more or less presumably unnecessaq/^to thc clecision. It may bc an^{expressionol a}

-.---

I I

l.I

l-i

\ rc\'p()iltt ()r 5eIlil]lellls rr ltielt Irrs ll() l)iJl(lill9 -'lli.t Seu.//rl/ .l.tt,t,,^.r.,, ..,t,.,.1 ilttrk/ttlll976) I S(( 5lll . lr i: ul o rrell .;crllerl hat thc sttrtcrlerrls rrltiilt iIc n(]i l)llrt 0l ljrc. r.lrtiO ceicicndi cor)stitutc obitcr tiicta uncl lire n,-rt i uthoritative. (Sce Kut.ttu/ttku .lllT(. t.,lfoltutleytr i herry [(.?.003) 7 SCC t97 : 2003 SCC. (Cri) 1722))...

¶153

Taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the above decision, this court is of the opinion that the directions given in Dr. P. Kisho.e Kumar,s case (Supra l) and Dr. Kiran Kumar,s case (supra I ) have precedential value inasmuch as the decisions therein relate rr the method and manner in which digitar evaluatio, is conductcd ar I detailed -qllicleli,es ancl clir.ections are issued. 'fhus. the' argl ,rent o1' the ]calncd ,\dclitionul r\clr oc,tc Ccneral rhat guiclc'lines issr ecl in tlrose juclurrcrls u'e .rlr p.ssirg obse^,atiors and arr ol,itc'r' lit.ttr is rr itlrotrt :rrr\ rlcr.it.

¶154

I 5. Ihr lurther contention ol the learned Aciditional Advocate Genelal that a varding marks on each answer script would influence the other exa niner/s cannot be accepted for the reason that the respondents h ve neither raised such plea in the earlier round of litigation nor r rised any objection for irnplementing the decisions of this Court

¶155

Pur iuant to the intelim order^{dated?2.11.2021passed by} this cour.t in t ris wiit^{petition, it is reportedthat the} l)L-titi()rlers^\vere pern-ritted to irspect^{the ansrverscripts.I'hcrtalicr.tl're petitiotlers}

¶156

¶157

¶158

filed additional affidavits^{stating that marks werenot awardedin each} answer script^{and a separate sheet wasannexedto the answer scripts} wherein marks are awarded^{and the same is in violation of the} decisions of thc^{erstr.r'hilccotntronHigh Court in Dr' P' Kishore} Kuntar's case^{(Strrpit l)and l)r.,1. Kiran Kumar's case (Supra 3)'}

¶159

17.^'l-he ciecisions^{relicd ort l'r1 the lcarrlcdAdditionalAdr"ocate} Genelal woulcl^{not be of any" help to thc rc'spondentsas the)' do not} cover issues relating^{to digitalevaluationwhich is the core sub.]ect.} As the specific^{issuesrelating to digital evaluation wereadjudicated} and decisions^{have been renderedin Dr. P' Kishore Kumar's case} (Supra 1) and Dr. J. Kiran^{Kumar'scase(Supra 2), in the opinionof} this Court, the same^{have precedentialvalueand as evident from the} record, the respondents^{have violatedthe guidelines issued in the said} two decisions.^{Hence, the actionof the respondentsis violative ol} Articles l4 ancl 2l^{of the Constitution ol India'}

¶160

lt is inlirlrltccl^{tothrs ( ourt tliat supplenrentatl} eratrinations ar.e^{scheclLrlcdliorn29, I 2.2021 .ln thcc it'ct-tt.n stances,} tlre respondents^{are directed to deltrthe supplementary examinatlons} tosomeothcldateuntilevaluarionol.answet.scriptsofthepetitioners herein are done^{following the principles laid downin the decisionsof} Dr, P.Kiran Kumar's^{case (Surpa 1) and Dr' J' Kiran Kumar's} case (Supra^{2) by using tick marks, 'x' marks, making remarksetc''} on the digital answer^{scriptsby usingdigital toolslike stylusetc'' and} awarding marks^{on each answerscript'The respondents are further}

/ I 1

lr-

directcd to e',al rate answer scripts of.all the studerts u.lio ha'e tailed in the exanrinat ons and,ot approached this coLrrt. Alier cleclaration ol results. th, respondents afe at liberty to reschedr-rle the supplernentary examinations. Furrher, to ensure fhir pla1, the respondents are directed to get the answer scripts evaluate<1 through new examlners.

¶165