The petitioners approached the Patna High Court after the Vice-Chancellor of a State university allegedly failed to take a timely decision on their representations seeking re-evaluation/re-totaling of postgraduate examination answer sheets. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the University informed the Court that a grievance/scrutiny committee had reviewed the scripts and found no ground to interfere with the original marks. The petitioners then challenged the Vice-Chancellor’s order dated 15.09.2020 rejecting their plea. The Patna High Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar) delivered its oral judgment on 19.02.2021, disposing of this batch of petitions with directions for a fresh, reasoned reconsideration by the Vice-Chancellor.

At the outset, the Court recorded that the petitions initially complained of inaction. After the first hearing, however, the University stated that the matter had been placed before a duly constituted grievance committee, whose report recommended no interference; the Vice-Chancellor accordingly rejected the representations. The petitioners countered that the process was mechanical and that multiple, obvious irregularities were visible on the face of the record—such as missing internal markings on answer scripts, apparent interpolation on OMR cover pages without countersignature, and at least one instance of faulty addition of marks. They relied on answer scripts obtained under the Right to Information Act to substantiate these assertions. The Court noted that several of these lapses were, indeed, “apparent,” including the incorrect tallying of marks on one script.

A central argument pressed by the petitioners was based on the Medical Council of India (MCI) Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (as amended up to 2018). Counsel argued that evaluation must involve at least four examiners per subject, with at least 50% being external; even in exceptional cases with three examiners, two must be external and MCI must be notified. When the Court asked the University to furnish the list of examiners, it emerged that, for several subjects, evaluation had been carried out by a solitary examiner. The University attempted to justify this by suggesting that the “four examiners” requirement applied only to the conduct of the examination, not to evaluation. The Court recorded its prima facie disagreement, observing that invigilation during the exam and evaluation of answer sheets are distinct processes and should not be conflated. Nevertheless, the Court consciously refrained from deciding this regulatory issue finally in order to avoid unsettling an entire examination cycle; it cautioned the University to ensure full compliance with MCI rules going forward.

On the scope of judicial review, the Court reiterated that courts do not normally re-evaluate academic papers or substitute their views for that of subject experts. It cited the Supreme Court’s formulation in Ranvijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, alongside a line of precedents—Himachal Pradesh PSC v. Mukesh Thakur; Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta; Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth; and Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. BPSC—to emphasize that re-evaluation/scrutiny can be allowed only when permitted by rules, or in rare, exceptional cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated without inference or rationalisation. The Court stressed that academic matters are best left to academics and that the presumption ordinarily favours the examining body. At the same time, it underlined that writ courts possess wide powers under Article 226 and may intervene in exceptional circumstances.

Applying these settled principles, the Court held that certain “glaring” and “conspicuous” lapses—missing internal markings, unsigned interpolations on OMR cover pages, and an obvious error in addition—ought to have been noticed and addressed by the grievance/scrutiny committee. Because these deficiencies were facial and procedural rather than matters of academic judgment, the Court directed the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider the petitioners’ cases afresh. If, upon reconsideration, the Vice-Chancellor concluded that re-evaluation or re-totaling was warranted, the answer scripts could be referred back to the same scrutiny committee; if not, that decision would attain finality and put the matter to rest.

The Court also addressed a practical complication: several petitioners had already re-appeared in subsequent examinations, potentially creating two sets of results. The Court advised the University against a rigid or pedantic approach. If re-assessment (if ordered) results in a pass, those marks should be taken as final; and if a petitioner fails on re-assessment but has passed in a later re-examination, the benefit of the later pass should not be denied. Recognising the University’s role in shaping students’ lives and reputation, the Court emphasised that the institution must balance fairness with academic integrity, treating students’ grievances with seriousness but not automatically equating self-assessment with correct assessment. Finally, the Court clarified that its order should not be treated as a precedent. The writ petitions were disposed of with these observations and directions.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision is significant for students, universities, and professional regulators in Bihar:

• For students: It reaffirms that while courts seldom re-evaluate answer sheets, they may intervene where facial irregularities (e.g., obvious totaling errors, missing signatures on interpolations, absent internal markings) indicate process failure rather than academic disagreement. Students should preserve and present objective evidence—RTI-obtained copies, clear arithmetic mistakes, or procedural lapses—to trigger meaningful scrutiny.
• For universities and examining bodies: The judgment signals that grievance/scrutiny committees must conduct diligent, documented review capable of detecting basic, non-academic errors. It also cautions compliance with regulatory frameworks (here, MCI Regulations) without necessarily annulling entire examination cycles, thus striking a balance between systemic stability and rule adherence.
• For policy/regulatory space: Though the Court did not finally rule on the MCI examiner-strength issue, it flagged the problem and urged strict compliance, which can drive better evaluation practices and reduce litigation in high-stakes professional courses.
• For fairness in transitional scenarios: By guiding how to treat candidates who both seek re-assessment and have re-appeared later, the Court promoted student-centric fairness without undermining examination integrity.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision (with reasoning)

• Whether writ courts can direct re-evaluation/re-totaling in university examinations.
  Decision: Courts typically avoid re-evaluation; intervention is reserved for cases where rules permit, or where material error is clearly shown (per Ranvijay Singh line of cases). Here, the Court did not order a blanket re-evaluation but directed a fresh, reasoned reconsideration by the Vice-Chancellor in light of apparent procedural lapses.
• Treatment of facial procedural errors (e.g., faulty totaling, missing countersignatures, absent internal markings).
  Decision: Such lapses are non-academic and must be caught by a grievance/scrutiny mechanism. Because the committee apparently missed them, the Court required the Vice-Chancellor to reconsider the matter and, if warranted, refer scripts for re-totaling/re-assessment.
• Interpretation of MCI Regulations on the minimum number of examiners.
  Decision: The Court disagreed prima facie with the University’s narrow reading that the requirement applies only to conduct and not evaluation; however, to avoid destabilising an entire session, it left the issue open, cautioning strict future compliance.
• Which result prevails when a student both seeks re-assessment and has re-appeared later.
  Decision: Adopt a student-friendly but principled approach: if re-assessment yields a pass, accept those marks; if re-assessment yields a fail but the student later passed, grant the benefit of the subsequent pass. Avoid rigidity that harms students’ careers.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Ranvijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357.
• Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 375.
• Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309.
• Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27.
• Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714.

Case Title

Petitioners v. Aryabhatta Knowledge University & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7692 of 2020
(with CWJC No. 7708 of 2020 and CWJC No. 7811 of 2020 heard together)

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 117

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar.

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For Petitioners (CWJC No. 7692 of 2020): Mr. Anil Kumar Singh; Ms. Bela Singh, Advocates.
• For Respondents (CWJC No. 7692 of 2020): Mr. Priyank Deepak, Advocate.
• For Petitioners (CWJC No. 7708 of 2020): Mr. Anil Kumar Singh; Ms. Bela Singh, Advocates.
• For Respondents (CWJC No. 7708 of 2020): Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate.
• For Petitioner (CWJC No. 7811 of 2020): Mr. Sandip Kumar; Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr. Shahi, Advocates.
• For Respondents (CWJC No. 7811 of 2020): Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate.

Link to Judgment

MTUjNzcwOCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-TQ9taTEHo–ak1–k=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.