High Court Permits Re-Evaluation Of Punjab Civil Judge Aspirant's Answer Sheet By Expert Panel

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while allowing a Punjab Civil Judge 2016 candidate's plea for re-evaluation of a question in English paper, said that when impugned evaluation if found to be wholly erroneous it must be send to another expert panel.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said:

"preferable & legally tenable course, when the impugned evaluation is found to be wholly erroneous, is not for the court to undertake the evaluation itself but rather to remit the matter to another equally competent expert or panel of experts, dissociated from the original process, for an independent & unbiased re-assessment."

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel said, such an approach not only preserves the sanctity of the judicial process but also upholds the institutional competence.

The Court was considering the issue "whether answers to the question in issue given by the petitioner in English paper deserve to be got re-evaluated."

When Multiple Answers Written For A Question Only First One To Be Considered

After perusing the answer-sheet of English paper, the Court rejected the first submission that he had written, more than one answer to the question in issue in the English paper and in case any one of the answer was correct, the same ought to have been evaluated by the examiner.

"This stand of the petitioner, when examined on the anvil of common sense and prudence, deserves rejection as it is not reasonable, by any stretch of imagination, that an examinee can be permitted to write multiple answers on an impulse and then expect the examiner to evaluate all of them to determine the accurate answer and also to enable such an examinee to succeed," added the Court. 

The bench opined that if such an argument be accepted, it would open the floodgates to confusion and arbitrariness in evaluation process, thereby defeating the very object of fair & meaningful assessment.

"The essential logical corollary that, indubitably, emerges is that only the first answer ought to be evaluated by the examiner," it added.

However, it considered the submission that even if the first answer to question in issue is correct and the same has been wrongly evaluated by the examiner.

The Court clarified further that in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution, is neither intended nor equipped to sit as appellate body over academic evaluations, particularly when the process involves exercise of subjective, descriptive & evaluative expertise.

Upon examining the question it found that, "even on the touchstone of ordinary knowledge of English language, the answer given by the petitioner cannot be said to be incorrect."

"This Court, but of-course, cannot turn a Nelson's eye to such an ex-facie defect in the evaluation. Hence, the first answer to the question in issue calls for re-evaluation," it added.

Adding a word of caution it said, even in accentuating circumstances as have arisen in the writ petition in hand, the court must exercise circumspection when it comes to re-evaluation of an answer by the Court itself.

"It is not within the legitimate province of this court to substitute its own evaluative judgment for that of the expert academic authority. The Court cannot arrogate unto itself the role of the examiner, for to do so would be to transgress the boundaries of judicial propriety & venture into realms where Courts lack both the training & competence," said the Court.

In the light of the above, the Court directed that the High Court "to have the first answerto the question in issue, namely, “Mohan is a painter of the first water” in the English paperaproposthe idiom, namely, “of the first water” re-evaluated by an examiner, other than the examiner/evaluator who had previously examined the said answer, in accordance with extant procedure& submit (in a sealed cover) the said re-evaluation, for perusal of this Court on or before the next date of hearing."

The matter is listed for July 07 for further consideration.

Mr. Rustam Garg – petitioner in person.

Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG Punjab for respondents No. 2 & 3.

Title: Rustam Garg v. Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh and others

Click here to read/download the order