# 12 S.C.R. 95 RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS - **Citation:** [2017] 12 S.C.R. 95 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2017-12-11 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 - **Bench:** Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/12-s-c-r-95-ran-vijay-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-31778 - **Pages:** 20 ## Headnote Service law : Recruitment - Post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science - Written examination and interview held A B - Select list for recruitment - Re-evaluation of answer sheets sought C by unsuccessful candidates - Interference by tlie courts in written examination results, resulting in third evaluation of answer sheets - Held: Courts should interfere in the results of m1 examination in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent - Interference by the Courts places the examination authorities under scrutiny and not the candidates - No doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in prepanng for an examination, even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination - Enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering - On facts, even after lapse of eight years, examination D E for recruitment of the teachers has not attained finality - Single Judge took it upon itself to ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions, which was completely beyond his jurisdiction and the exercise carried out was impermissible - Division Bench erred in sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee - Both the High Courts ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers - Revaluation, cancellation, whichever option is chosen, there would be some candidates who F are likely to suffer and lose their jobs - Thus, under the circumstances G of the case, the middle path is taken, which is to declare the third set of results - Candidates working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the earlier declaration of results, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should be allowed to continue - New candidates selected, consequent upon the third set of results to 95 H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R. . A be accommodated since they were erroneously not selected on earlier occasions. - U.P. Secondary Education Sen1ices Selection Board Act, 1982 - Revaluation of answer books - Issue wlzethe1; under law, a candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and B revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the State Board stating that there shall be no such right, is ultra vires, unreasonable and void - Held: If statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authori~v conducting the examination may permit it and if statute does not c permit re-evaluation, the Court may permit only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error has been committed - Furthe1; the Court should not re-el'Ciluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate since it has no expertise - Court to presume the correctness of the key answers and in case of a doubt, the benefit D should go to tlie examination authority rather than to the candidate - Furthermore, there should be 1w sympathy or compassion in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet. Judicial discipline: Essential facet - Held: Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial E discipline - Judge might have a difference of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view - ln the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The Court is painful over the fact that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and 0 reviewed so that selected candidates are not ## Text _Characters 0–39,942 of 46,225. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39942 for what follows._ [2017) 12 S.C.R. 95 RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 etc.) December 11, 2017 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] Service law : Recruitment - Post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science - Written examination and interview held A B - Select list for recruitment - Re-evaluation of answer sheets sought C by unsuccessful candidates - Interference by tlie courts in written examination results, resulting in third evaluation of answer sheets - Held: Courts should interfere in the results of m1 examination in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent - Interference by the Courts places the examination authorities under scrutiny and not the candidates - No doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in prepanng for an examination, even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination - Enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering - On facts, even after lapse of eight years, examination D E for recruitment of the teachers has not attained finality - Single Judge took it upon itself to ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions, which was completely beyond his jurisdiction and the exercise carried out was impermissible - Division Bench erred in sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee - Both the High Courts ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers - Revaluation, cancellation, whichever option is chosen, there would be some candidates who F are likely to suffer and lose their jobs - Thus, under the circumstances G of the case, the middle path is taken, which is to declare the third set of results - Candidates working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the earlier declaration of results, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should be allowed to continue - New candidates selected, consequent upon the third set of results to 95 H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 12 S.C.R. . A be accommodated since they were erroneously not selected on earlier occasions. - U.P. Secondary Education Sen1ices Selection Board Act, 1982 - Revaluation of answer books - Issue wlzethe1; under law, a candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and B revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the State Board stating that there shall be no such right, is ultra vires, unreasonable and void - Held: If statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authori~v conducting the examination may permit it and if statute does not c permit re-evaluation, the Court may permit only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error has been committed - Furthe1; the Court should not re-el'Ciluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate since it has no expertise - Court to presume the correctness of the key answers and in case of a doubt, the benefit D should go to tlie examination authority rather than to the candidate - Furthermore, there should be 1w sympathy or compassion in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet. Judicial discipline: Essential facet - Held: Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial E discipline - Judge might have a difference of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view - ln the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1.1 The Court is painful over the fact that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January, 2009 has still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and 0 reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years. The courts can interfere in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. The law on revaluation of answer ' sheet is that if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or H RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from . prohibiting it) then 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; the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. [Paras 16. 18, 30] [105-E-F; 106-C; 11-G-H; 112-A-B] 1.2 Sympathy or compassion docs not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process docs not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse-exclude the suspect or offending question. [Para 31] [112-C-D] 1.3 It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must 97 A B c D E F G H 98 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation docs not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. [Para 32] [112-E-H: 113-A] 1.4 In the first instance the Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. Having come to the conclusion that both the High Courts ought to have been far more circumspect · in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario, the options are to nullify the entire reevaluation process and depend on the result declared on 14.09.2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their G jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for employment. [Para 34] [113-C-E] H 1.5 Having weighed the options, the middle path is perhaps the best path to be taken under the circumstances of the case. The middle path is to declare the third set of results since the RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 99 Board has undertaken a massive exercise under the directions A of the High Court. [Para 35] [113-F] 1.6 In view of the discussion and taking into consideration all the possibilities, the following directions are issued: (1) the results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated 2.11.2015 of the High Court should be declared B by the Board within the stipulated period; (2) the candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be removed from service but should be allowed to continue; (3) the candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should c be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers D would not be entitled to any consequential benefits. [Para 37] [114-B-E] 1.7 Deep anguish is expressed with the turn of events whereby the Single Judge entertained a batch of writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other Single Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial discipline. A judge might have a differenre of opinion with another judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view. In the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule of law. [Para 38] [114-E-G] Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University (2005) 13 SCC 744 - distinguishing. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [2010] 7 SCR 189 : (2010) 6 SCC 759 ; Kanpur University v. Smnir Gupta [1984] 1 SCR 73 : 1983 (4) SCC 309 ; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh E F G H 100 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1985] 1 SCR 29 : (1984) 4 SCC 27 ; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bilzar , Public Service Commission [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372 : (2004) 6 SCC 714 ; Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [2007] 10 SCR 464 : (2007) 8 SCC 242 ; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383 ; President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 1143 : (2007) 1 SCC 603 ; and Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava [2011] 10 SCR 286 : (2014} 14 sec 523 - referred to. Case Law Reference [2010] 7 SCR 189 referred to para 5 (2005) 13 sec 744 distinguishing para 8 [1984] 1 SCR 73 referred to· para 19 [1985] 1 SCR 29 referred to para 20 [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372 referred to para 26 [2007] 10 SCR 464 referred to para 27 (2004) 13 sec 383 referl'il&.to para 27 [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 1143 referred to para27 [2011] 10 SCR 286 referred to para 28 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2015 of the High Court . of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 629 of 2014 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 356-357, 358, 366, 355, 354 of2017. RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 101 Ms. Indira Jaising, V.M. Sinha, Sr. Advs., Purushottam Sharma A Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Abhishek Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Vani Vyas, Ms. Sushma Singh, Amit, L. Nidhiram Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Vinay Kumar Sharma, Shantanu J., Rajiv Kumar, Sagar Kumar, Ms. Arnita, Shantanu J., P. Agarwal, Abhishek Tripathi, Narendra Kumar Goyal, Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ilam Pradi, Pranay Kapur, B Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Ad vs. for the Appellants. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, Mahabir Singh, Brijender Chahar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Dr. B. K. Jauhari, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Deepak Anand, Aviral Saxena, Vinay Garg, M. R. Shamshad, R.J3ala, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms. Kavita Bharadwaj, Anurag Ojha, Satya · Iitra, Sanjay Kr. Visen, T. N. Tripathi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Prashant C Shukla, M~ .hreya Mishra, Prashant Singh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Ad vs. for the Respondents. Th~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J, I. What a mess! This is perhaps the D only way to describe the events that have transpired in the examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. We have reached the present stage of judgment after eight long years of uncertainty for, and three evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than 36,000 candidates who took the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers way back in January 2009. Hopefully today, their travails, as those of the U .P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, will come to a satisfactory end. E 2. On 151h January, 2009 the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (for short the "Board") published an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate F Teachers in Social Science. The recruitment was to be in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held pursuant to the advertisement and the result of the written examination G was declared by the Board on 18'h June, 2010. It may be mentioned that the written examination was based on multiple choice answers which were to be scanned on OMR sheets. 4. The candidates who qualified in the written examination were called for an interview held between l 61h and 261h July, 2010. Eventually, H 102 A c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 12 S.C.R. the combined result (written examination and interview) was declared on 141h September, 2010. According to the appellants, they were successful in the written examination as well as in the interview and were amongst those who were in the select list for recruitment. 5. Some candidates who were not successful in the written examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between 2010 and 2011. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions were that there was no provis;on for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing writ petitions on the decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur' in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier decisions and held: "Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation." 6. Another batch of writ petitions (having 77 writ petitioners) came to be listed before another learned Single Judge of the High Court. The subject and issues were the same and the learned Single Judge admitted these writ petitions for final hearing notwithstanding the dismissal of several similar petitions. The challenge made by the writ petitioners was to seven questions/answers in the written examination which, according to them, had incorrect key answers. The learned Single Judge personally examined those seven questions and concluded that: (a) The correct answer of question no. 24 in History paper would be option (I). (b) For question no. 25, History paper, option (2) is correct. (c) Option (2) is the correct answer of question no. 36 of History paper. ( d) Option (2) is correct answer in respect to question no. 37 of History paper. (e) Question no. 40 of History paper is wrongly framed. 1c2010i 6 sec 759 RAN VIJAY SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 103 [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] (f) In question no. 43, there may be two correct answers, i.e. A options (1) and (3). (g) In question no.32 of Civics Paper, option (3) would be the correct answer. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe: "It cannot be doubted that being a selection body for appointment of Teachers in Secondary Schools, the Selection Board was under a pious as well as statutory obligation to hold selection very carefully, meticulously and in the most honest and correct manner. The job of Selection Board could not have been completed by mere holding a selection without caring whether examination is being conducted correctly and properly, whether all the questions have been framed in a proper manner, whether the answer(s), if it is multiple choice examination, have been given with due care ~"1 caution so as to leave no scope of error or mistake therein B c etc. In fact if such a mistake is committed, it causes a multiedged injury to an otherwise studious, intelligent and well conversant D student who understand the subject, well knows the relevant details and correct answers but suffers due to sheer negligence of the examining body. The obligation of examining body cannot be allowed to whittle out in any manner for any reason whatsoever. For the fault of examining body, a candidate cannot be made to suffer." E 7. On this basis, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment and order dated s•h February, 2012 directing re-examination of the answer sheets of these 77 writ petitioners. It was further directed that in case these writ petitioners are selected then those at the bottom of the select F list would automatically have to be pushed out. 8. In must be recorded that the learned Single Judge did refer to and cite several decisions of this Court on the subject or re-evaluation but unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down. The learned Single Judge relied on Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati G University" but failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers under consideration in that case were demonstrably wrong and this was not in dispute and even the learned counsel appearing for the University did not question this fact. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. '