BDS student’s four papers to be independently re-evaluated after apparent marking anomalies, Chhattisgarh High Court rules

The petitioner, a BDS final-year candidate, was declared unsuccessful after receiving below-pass theory marks in four subjects, although she obtained 1002/1600 overall and passed the practical components.

She alleged that the digital evaluation was arbitrary, relying on low or zero marks for answers she said were correct and on the absence of annotations in the answer-book copies.

Her application for retotalling resulted in no change.

The University opposed re-evaluation, stating that its rules permitted it in no more than two papers and that BDS scripts were evaluated digitally by a single subject expert.

The petitioner sought re-evaluation under Article 226.

Whether the High Court may, under Article 226, direct re-evaluation despite the absence of a general entitlement to re-evaluation and the University’s two-paper limit, where exceptional circumstances are alleged.

Whether the material concerning the petitioner’s four answer books disclosed prima facie evaluation anomalies warranting independent re-evaluation.

Article 226 confers a broad constitutional power, but re-evaluation is not available as of right where the governing rules make no provision for it.

Under High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, (2019) 16 SCC 663, and Aish Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (2023) 13 SCC 621, a court may intervene in rare and exceptional cases where it is beyond doubt that a candidate gave a correct answer but received no marks; any genuine doubt is to be resolved in favour of the examining body.

The Court also considered Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, (2022) 18 SCC 716, and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, cited for judicial restraint where re-evaluation is not authorised by the applicable rules.

The Court treated the petitioner’s answer-book copies and question-wise marks as raising a prima facie concern about the evaluation.

It noted, among other matters, that two Periodontology long answers received only two marks each and that certain fully attempted answers received zero, without apparent indications of deficiencies.

The Court considered retotalling inadequate because it checks arithmetic rather than the substantive assessment of answers.

It held that the alleged anomalies, together with the limit on administrative re-evaluation, warranted exceptional intervention under Article 226, notwithstanding the general rule of judicial restraint.

The respondents were further directed to issue a revised marksheet in accordance with law, preferably within the following two months.

No order as to costs was made.