Public Examination System Need To Be Carefully Scrutinized To Avoid "Litigation Mess" Which Could Go On For Several Years: SC [Read Judgment]

The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years, the Bench said.“What a mess!”, remarked Supreme Court Bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, which finally provided a ‘middle path’ solution to mess that happened in recruitment. “What a mess!”, remarked Supreme Court Bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, which finally provided a ‘middle path’ solution to mess that happened in recruitment examination conducted by the UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board in 2009. 2010-2011: A set of writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates were dismissed by Single Bench of Allahabad High Court, on the ground that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules. “ The Bench also summarized, referring to various case-laws on the subject of re-evaluation, as follows: If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or 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 re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet 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; In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.