Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 6202   OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13424 of 2007)

Sahiti and others ... Appellants

Versus

The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University Of Health Sciences and others         ... Respondents

With

Civil Appeal Nos.6203,6204, 6206-6211 and 6212   OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.13525/2007, 14281/2007, 18798-18803/2007 and 21051/2007)

J U D G M E N T

J.M. Panchal, J.

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. The instant appeals are directed against judgment

dated July 20, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench of

High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at

Hyderabad  in  Writ  Appeal  No.  402  of  2007  and  other

cognate appeals by which the common judgment dated

May 1, 2007, rendered by the learned single Judge of the

High  Court  upholding  action  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  of

Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada (for

short “the University”) of re-verification/re-valuation/re-

examination of answer scripts of 436 students, who had

failed in first year MBBS examination during academic

year  2006-07,  is  set  aside  and  the  decision  of  the

Executive Council to cancel the result of re-verification of

answer  scripts  and  asking  294  students,  who  were

declared passed on re-verification of answer scripts to re-

appear in examination of first year MBBS, is upheld.

3. The appellants, who are students, joined first year

MBBS course for the academic year 2006-07 in different

2

private  medical  colleges  which  are  affiliated  to  the

University,  Vijaywada.  They appeared in the first year

M.B.B.S.  examination held from September  5,  2006 to

October 10, 2006.  The results of the examination were

declared on December 2, 2006.  The record shows that in

all  4076 students  had appeared in examination out  of

whom  992  students  were  declared  failed  in  different

papers.  In the results published by the university, it was

specifically mentioned that such of those students who

wanted to attend personal identification for re-totalling of

their  theory  answer  scripts  should  submit  their

applications  on  or  before  December  13,  2006.   This

personal identification was meant to enable the students

to apply for re-totalling of their answer scripts.  Out of

the 992 students who had failed, 436 students applied

for re-totalling of their respective answer scripts.  When

the  process  of  re-totalling  was  going  on,  some

representations  were  addressed  to  His  Excellency,  the

Governor,  who is Chancellor  of the university,  and the

Hon’ble Minister for Medical and Health as well the Vice-

3

Chancellor of the university on behalf of the students in

the  name  of  MBBS  First  Year  Students’  Parents’

Association  with  complaints  of  improper  and  under

valuation of answer scripts.  In  the complaints,  it  was

stated that answer scripts of three papers i.e. Anatomy,

Physiology and Bio-Chemistry were not properly valued

and the valuation was harsh whereas some questions in

Physiology were out of syllabus and because of all  these

factors, the percentage of students who had cleared the

examination was low.  It is the case of the students that,

the  Vice-Chancellor,  after  listening  to  their  grievances,

assured  that  he  would  verify  the  answer  books  and if

necessary, get them re-examined.  Having regard to the

nature  of  complaints  received,  the  Vice-Chancellor

constituted  a  committee  of  three  expert  professors  on

January  3,  2007  for  re-verification/re-valuation/re-

examination  of  answer  scripts.   The  Committee

undertook  re-verification  of  the  answer  scripts  and

recorded  marks on printed slips of  papers  which were

stapled at the top of answer scripts.  On the basis of re-

4

verification  made  by  the  Committee  appointed  by  the

Vice-Chancellor,  the University declared revised results

on  February  2,  2007  and  294  students  out  of  436

students, who had applied for re-totalling, were declared

“Pass”.   The action taken by the Vice-Chancellor of re-

totalling and re-verification of the answer sheets of First

Year M.B.B.S. examination held in September/October,

2006  was  placed  before  Executive  Council  for  its

ratification.   The  matter  was  considered  by  Executive

Council and the Council had approved the action taken

by the Vice-Chancellor.  The revised results were sent to

the Principals of medical  colleges.   Subsequent to the

declaration  of  the  results,  after  re-valuation  His

Excellency,  the  Governor  of  the  State,  as  well  as  the

Minister  for  Medical,  Health  and  Family  Welfare  and

Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University  received

communications  and  complaints  stating  that

irregularities  were  committed  in  the  process  of  re-

verification.  Because of the controversy generated in the

media,  His  Excellency  the  Governor  forwarded  the

5

complaints received by him to the Executive Council of

the University for appropriate action.  A meeting of the

Executive  Council  of  the  University  was  convened  to

consider  the action of  re-totalling and re-verification of

answer  scripts  relating  to  First  Year  M.B.B.S.

examination  held  in  September/October,  2006.  The

Executive  Council  resolved  to  ask  the  Government  of

Andhra Pradesh to constitute a high level committee to

go into the circumstances under which re-verification of

answer sheets was undertaken and find out whether any

irregularities  had  taken  place.   The  Executive  Council

further  resolved  to  withhold  declaration  of  the  revised

results  of  First  Year  M.B.B.S.  course  till  the  enquiry

report was submitted and give intimation of the same to

the  Principals  of  medical  colleges  concerned.

Accordingly,  by  letter  dated  February  2,  2007  the

Principals of medical colleges were informed not to give

effect to the results obtained on re-verification of answer

scripts of First Year M.B.B.S. examination.  In pursuance

to  the  resolution  of  Executive  Council,  the  University

6

twice  requested  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Government  to

constitute  a  high  level  committee  but  the  Government

did not oblige the University.   Meanwhile, petitions were

filed  in  High  Court  by  the  beneficiaries  of  the  re-

valuation of answer scripts seeking a direction to permit

them to attend the second year M.B.B.S.  course.   The

request  made  by  the  Registrar  to  the  Government  to

constitute a high level committee to examine the whole

issue was not acceded to but the Government referred

the  matter  to  the  Law  Department  and  Medical

Department of the State.  The Medical  Department did

not  agree  with  the  action  of  the  Vice-Chancellor.

Ultimately the Chief Secretary sought the opinion of the

learned Advocate General of the State in the matter who,

by his letter dated 29-03-07, opined that the decision of

Vice-Chancellor permitting re-valuation of answer scripts

was  not  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of

law/procedure.   According  to  the  learned  Advocate

General,  merely  because  certain

representations/complaints  were  received  from  the

7

students/parents  of  the  students,  the  Vice-Chancellor

ought not to have ordered re-correction of answer scripts,

more particularly, when there is no provision to do so in

the  Act.  The  learned  Advocate  General  expressed  the

opinion that the University, being an autonomous body,

there  was  no  necessity  for  referring  the  matter  to

Government for the purpose of enquiring into the whole

issue and, therefore, the very reference/request made by

the University asking the Government to probe into the

matter was not in accordance with the proviso to Section

12(3) of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act 1986

(‘the Act’ for short).

In  view  of  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Advocate

General,  the  meeting  of  the  Executive  Council  was

convened  on  April  2,  2007.   The  Vice-Chancellor

informed other  members  of  Executive  Council  that  re-

valuation of answer scripts was ordered because of the

pressure  from  the  students  who  had  failed  and  their

parents.   Having  regard  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  the

8

Executive  Council  agreed  with  the  opinion  of  learned

Advocate General and unanimously cancelled the whole

process of re-valuation.   The Executive  Council  was of

the opinion that opportunity should be given to the failed

students to re-appear in the examination and, therefore,

it  directed  the  students  who  had  failed  in

September/October 2006 examination to reappear in the

examination which was scheduled to take place on April

25, 2007.

4. The students and their parents were of the opinion

that the Executive Council was not justified in cancelling

the whole process of re-valuation, which was undertaken

pursuant  to  the  order  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  nor  the

Executive Council was justified in asking the students to

re-appear  in  first  year  MBBS  examination,  which  was

scheduled to be held on April 25, 2007.  Therefore, they

invoked  extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court

under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  by  filing  Writ

Petition No. 8658 of 2007 and other batch of petitions.

9

5. The learned single Judge of the High Court was of

the  opinion that  the Vice-Chancellor  had power  under

Section  12(2)  of  the  Act,  to  appoint  committee  for  re-

verification of the answer scripts of the students and in

the  absence  of  any  express  power  conferred  on  the

Executive  Council  or  the  Academic  Council,  the

Executive  Council  was  not  justified  in  cancelling  the

whole  process  undertaken  for  re-verification  at  the

behest  of  the  Vice-Chancellor.   In  view  of  above

mentioned findings, the learned single Judge allowed the

writ petitions filed by the students vide judgment dated

May 1, 2007.

6. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  Registrar  of  the  University

filed  Writ  Appeal  No.  402  of  2007  and  other  cognate

appeals.  The Division Bench of the High Court took the

view that the Vice-Chancellor  of  the University  had no

10

jurisdiction under Section 12(2)  of the Act to order re-

verification  of  the  answer  scripts  of  the  students  and,

therefore,  the  Executive  Council  was  justified  in

cancelling the whole  process of  re-valuation as well  as

directing the students to re-appear  in first  year  MBBS

examination, which was scheduled to take place on April

25,  2007.   In  view  of  these  conclusions,  the  Division

Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeals filed by

the Registrar of the University giving rise to the instant

appeals.

7. This Court  has heard the learned counsel  for the

parties at length and in great detail.  This Court has also

taken into consideration the documents forming part of

the appeals.   

From the record of the case it is evident that in all,

4076  students  had  appeared  in  first  year  MBBS

examination, which was held between September 5, 2006

and October 10, 2006.  The results of the examination

were declared on December 2, 2006 and 992 students

11

were  declared  failed  in  different  papers.   Out  of  992

students,  who  were  declared  failed,  436  students  had

applied  for  re-totalling  of  the  marks  assigned  by  the

examiners in three different papers.  When this process

of re-totalling was going on, some representations were

submitted  to  the  University  and  Vice-Chancellor  on

behalf of the students in the name of MBBS First Year

Students’  Parent’s  Association  with  complaints  of

improper  and under  valuation  of  answer  scripts.   The

record shows that Vice-Chancellor directed re-verification

of  the  answer  scripts.   On January 3,  2007  the Vice-

Chancellor  constituted a committee  of  three  professors

for  re-verification  of  answer  scripts.   The  Committee

undertook  re-verification  and  recorded  marks  on  the

printed slips of papers stapled at the top of the answer

scripts.  On the basis of the re-verification undertaken by

the  Committee  constituted  by  the  Vice-Chancellor,  the

University declared revised results on February 2, 2007

by which 294  students  out  of  436  students,  who had

applied  for  re-totalling,  were  declared  “Pass”.

12

Subsequently,  highest  authorities  of  the  University

received  communications  and  complaints  that

irregularities  were  committed  in  the  process  of

re-verification.  In  the backdrop of the complaints,  the

matter  was  placed  before  the  Executive  Council  for

considering the question whether the action taken for the

re-verification  of  the  answer  scripts  by  the  Vice-

Chancellor  of  the  University  was  valid.   The  Vice-

Chancellor agreed before the Executive Council that he

had ordered re-verification under pressure and coercion

from the students and their parents.  Having regard to

the  facts  of  the  case,  the  Executive  Council  did  not

approve  the  action of  the  Vice-Chancellor  directing  re-

verification of the answer scripts and cancelled the whole

process  of  re-verification.   The  Executive  Council  was

further of the opinion that opportunity should be given to

the  failed  students  to  re-appear  in  examination  and,

therefore, it directed the students, who had failed, to re-

appear in the first year MBBS examination, which was

scheduled to be held on April 25, 2007.   

13

8. The Division Bench of the High Court has set aside

the judgment of the learned single Judge on the ground

that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power

to order re-verification of the answer scripts.  Section 12

(2) of the Act reads as under: -

“The  Vice-Chancellor  shall  be  the  Principal executive  and  academic  officer  of  the University  and  shall  exercise  general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University.”

Sub-section  (3)  of  Section  12  provides  that  the  Vice-

Chancellor may, if he is of opinion that immediate action

is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred

on any authority of the University by or under the Act

and shall  report  to such authority the action taken by

him  on  such  matter.   The  proviso  to  sub-Section  (3)

stipulates  that if  the authority concerned is  of  opinion

14

that such action ought not to have been taken, it may

refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon

shall be final.   

9. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the provisions

of Section 12(2) of the Act with Section 12(3) of the

Act makes it evident that the Vice-Chancellor has

power  to  take  appropriate  action  relating  to  the

affairs of the University, which includes conduct of

examination  also.   The  Vice-Chancellor  is  the

conscious  keeper  of  the  University.   He  is  the

principal  executive  and  academic  officer  of  the

University.  He is entrusted with the responsibility

of  overall  administration  of  academic  as  well  as

non-academic affairs.  For these purposes, the Act

confers  both  express  and  implied  powers  on  the

Vice-Chancellor.   Section  30  of  the  Act  confers

power on the Executive Council to make statutes.

In exercise of that power, the Executive Council has

framed the Statutes of University.   Clause 1 of the

15

Statutes  deals  with  the  status  of  the  Vice-

Chancellor and his powers and duties.  Sub-Clause

(3) of Clause 1 of the Statues provides that it shall

be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the

provisions of this Act, the Statues, Ordinances and

Regulations are duly observed and he may exercise

all  powers  necessary  for  this  purpose.   Thus  the

express powers include among others, the duty to

ensure  that  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  Statutes,

Ordinances  and  Regulations  are  observed  by  all

concerned.   The  wordings  of  Sub-Clause  (3)  of

Clause  1  of  the  Statute  shows  that  a  residuary

power which is required to be exercised, in order to

see  that  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the  Statutes,

Ordinances and Regulations are duly  observed,  is

vested in the Vice-Chancellor.  The Vice-Chancellor

has  right  to  regulate  the  work  and  conduct  of

officers and other employees of the University.  He

has  also  emergency  powers  to  deal  with  any

untoward  situation.   The  power  conferred  under

16

Section 12(2) and 12(3) is indeed significant.  If the

Vice-Chancellor  believes  that  a  situation  calls  for

immediate  action,  he  can take  such action as he

thinks necessary though in the normal course he is

not  competent  to  take  that  action.   However,  he

must  report  to  the  concerned  authority  or  body,

who would, in the ordinary course, have dealt with

the matter.  That is not all.  His pivotal position as

the principal executive officer also carries with him

certain implied powers.  It is the magisterial power

which  is  plainly  to  be  inferred.   This  power  is

essential for him to maintain domestic discipline in

the academic and non-academic affairs.  In a wide

variety of situations in the relationship of tutor and

pupil he has to act firmly and promptly to put down

indiscipline and malpractice.  As per the Statutes of

university, the Vice-Chancellor is whole-time Officer

of  the  university  and  by  virtue  of  his  office,  is  a

Member  and  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Council

and  of  the  Academic  Council.   He  has  power  to

17

convene meetings of the Executive Council and the

Academic Council.  

The plea that there is absence of specific provision

enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the

answer scripts and, therefore,  the Judgment impugned

should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted.  Re-

evaluation of  answer  scripts  in  the  absence  of  specific

provision  is  perfectly  legal  and  permissible.   In  such

cases,  what  the  Court  should  consider  is  whether  the

decision  of  the  educational  authority  is  arbitrary,

unreasonable,  mala  fide  and  whether  the  decision

contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance

and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the

opinion  expressed  by  the  authority.   In  Board  of

Secondary  Education  Vs.  Pravas  Ranjan  Panda  and

Another (2004) 13 SCC 383,  the respondent No.1, i.e.,

Pravas  Ranjan  Panda  appeared  in  the  High  School

Certificate  Examination,  2003  as  a  regular  candidate.

He  passed  the  said  examination  securing  about  90%

18

marks. He filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution  alleging  that  he  had  answered  all  the

questions correctly without committing any mistake and,

therefore, deserved full marks in each paper, but due to

carelessness and negligence of the Board in appointing

inexperienced  and  unqualified  examiners  in  certain

papers,  low  marks  had  been  awarded  to  him  due  to

which he  lost  his  chance  of  being  within the  first  ten

examinees in the HSC Examination, 2003.  A prayer was

made  for  re-evaluation  of  his  answer  book.   The  High

Court  disposed  of  the  petition  with  a  direction  to  the

Board  to  scrutinize  and  recheck  the  answer  scripts  of

examinees securing 90% and above marks in aggregate

in HSC Examination 2003 and if there was any change

or  variation  in  the  marks  the  petitioner  should  be

informed accordingly.  The candidates secured less than

90%  of  marks  in  aggregate  who  had  applied  for

rechecking  and  readdition  of  marks  in  certain  answer

papers  had  to  be  considered  in  accordance  with  the

resolution of Board for rechecking of marks.   

19

A  review  petition  was  subsequently  filed  by  the

Board wherein it was submitted that the Board shall face

immense  difficulties  in  scrutinizing  and  examining  all

answer  sheets  after  publication  of  the  results.   It  was

also  stated that  217  examinees  had secured  90% and

above marks in the examination and 27 examiners of the

status  of  Chief  Examiner  would  be  required  for  re-

examination  of  the  answer  books  and  some  more

examiners would be necessary to examine the subject of

third  language.   However,  the  review  petition  was

dismissed.  In appeals the Supreme Court noticed that

the High Court, though observed that the writ petitioner

who had taken the examination was hardly a competent

person to assess his own merit and on that basis claim

re-evaluation  of  papers,  but  issued  the  aforesaid

direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice

on account of marginal variation in the marks.  It  was

admitted before the Supreme Court that the regulation of

the Board of Secondary education, Orissa did not make

any  provision  of  re-evaluation  of  answer  books  of  the

20

students.  The Supreme Court was of the opinion that

the question whether in absence of any provision to that

effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of

his answer books was examined by the Supreme Court

in  Pramod  Kumar  Srivastava  Vs.  Chairman,  Bihar

Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714.  It was

noticed by the Supreme Court that in the said decision it

was  held  that  in  absence  of  rules  providing  for  re-

evaluation of answer books no direction should be issued

because a direction for re-evaluation of the answer books

would  throw  many  problems  and  in  the  larger  public

interest such a direction must be avoided.  Therefore, the

Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the order of

the  High  Court  directing  re-evaluation  of  the  answer

books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks

was clearly unsustainable in law and set aside the same.

The above decision deals with the right of the student or

candidate  to  claim  re-examination/re-evaluation  of  his

answer sheet and the power of the High Court to order

revaluation of answer sheets.  It does not deal with the

21

power  of  the  Board  to  order  re-evaluation  of  answer

books if factual scenario so demands.  Award of marks

by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact

that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statute at

the  instance  of  candidate,   the  examiner  has  to  be

careful,  cautious  and has the  duty  to  ensure  that  the

answers are properly evaluated.    Therefore, where the

authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is

not  fair  or  that  the  examiner  was  not  careful  in

evaluating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found

necessary.  There may be several instances wherein re-

evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be

ordered  and  this  Court  need  not  make  an  exhaustive

catalogue of the same.  However, if the authorities are of

the  opinion that  re-evaluation of  the answer  scripts  is

necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its

own views for that of those who are expert in academic

matters.    Under the circumstances the plea advanced

on behalf of the respondents that Vice-Chancellor of the

N.T.R. University of Health, Sciences had no authority to

22

order  re-evaluation  of  the  answer  scripts,  cannot  be

upheld.  Therefore,  this  Court  does  not  agree  with  the

finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court

that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power

or  jurisdiction  to  order  the  re-verification  of  answer

scripts.   However,  the  facts  indicate  that  the  Vice-

Chancellor had exercised power to order re-verification of

answer  scripts  under  pressure  and  coercion  from  the

students  and  their  parents  and  not  independently  on

merits.   As  noticed  earlier,  436  students  had  merely

demanded re-totalling of marks.  If  the Vice-Chancellor

was of the opinion that revaluation of answer scripts was

necessary, he should have directed revaluation of answer

scripts  of  all  992  students  who  had  failed  and

revaluation  of  answer  scripts  could  not  have  been

confined only to 436 students who had never applied for

re-valuation of their answer script, but had applied only

for  re-totalling  of  their  marks  recorded  on  the  answer

scripts.  From the record, it is evident that the University

authorities including the Vice-Chancellor, did not at all

23

go  into  the  merits  of  the  allegations  made  in  the

complaints/representations  submitted  by  the  parent’s

association for re-verification to find out whether there

was any grain of truth in them.  The record produced by

the  University  does  not  give  any  indication  of

methodology adopted by the Committee for re-valuation.

Moreover,  the Members of the Committee appointed by

the  Vice-Chancellor  for  re-valuation  of  answer  scripts

had  undertaken  re-verification  of  1082  answer  scripts

and  completed  re-verification  in  two  days  which  itself

indicates  that  the  said  re-valuation  was  not  properly

done and no credence could be given to the same. It is

worth noticing that the decision of the Executive Council

to cancel the result of the students on the basis of re-

verification  and  giving  an  opportunity  to  the  failed

students to re-appear in the first year MBBS examination

was approved by the Vice-Chancellor himself.  Therefore,

this Court is of the opinion that the Division Bench of the

High Court was justified in upholding the decision of the

24

Executive  Council  to  cancel  the  result  obtained on re-

verification of answer scripts.

10. Mr.  Gopal  Subramanium,  learned  Additional

Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, has

stated at the Bar that the University is inclined to

hold  supplementary  examination  of  the  students,

who have yet to clear first year MBBS examination.

Therefore,  NTR  University  of  Health  Sciences  is

hereby directed to hold supplementary examination

of  all  students  who  have  yet  not  cleared  the

examination  of  First  Year  M.B.B.S.  held  in

September/October  2006.   Pursuant  to  interim

orders,  294  students were  permitted  to  prosecute

studies  in  Second  Year  M.B.B.S.   If  any

student/students  fails/fail  in  supplementary

examination of First Year M.B.B.S. examination, the

declaration  of  the  results  of  such

candidate/candidates who appear for Second Year

M.B.B.S be withheld or their further course of study

25

be decided based on the Rules and Regulations of

University  applicable  to  such  students.    It  is

clarified  that  the  abovementioned  direction  would

apply only to those students who had appeared and

failed  in the  first  year  M.B.B.S.  examination  held

between September 5, 2006 and October 10, 2006.

Subject  to  the  direction  given  above,  this  Court

finds that no ground is made out by the appellants

to interfere with the ultimate conclusion reached by

the Division Bench and, therefore, the appeals are

disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no order as

to costs.

...................................CJI [K.G. Balakrishnan]

.....................................J. [P. Sathasivam]

.....................................J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi;

26

October 22, 2008.

27