1984 (7) TMI 355 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to inspection, verification, and revaluation of answer books.
2. Validity of Regulation 104(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977.
3. Principles of natural justice.
4. Ultra vires and reasonableness of the regulations.
5. Impact on public interest and administrative feasibility.

Summary:
1. Right to Inspection, Verification, and Revaluation of Answer Books:
The Supreme Court addressed whether a candidate has a right to demand inspection, verification, and revaluation of answer books. The Maharashtra State Board regulations explicitly state that there shall be no such right. The High Court had previously divided the writ petitions into two groups: one claiming the right to inspection and the other claiming the right to revaluation. The High Court had held that the prohibition on inspection and revaluation in Regulation 104(3) was ultra vires and unreasonable.

2. Validity of Regulation 104(3):
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, holding that Regulation 104(3) is within the regulation-making power conferred by Section 36 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965. The Court emphasized that the regulation-making body has the authority to decide on policies for conducting examinations and evaluating performance. The Court found that the High Court's approach was incorrect in substituting its opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate.

3. Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the principles of natural justice do not apply to the process of evaluation of answer papers or subsequent verification of marks. The Court held that the evaluation process does not involve any decision-making process that brings about adverse civil consequences to the examinees.

4. Ultra Vires and Reasonableness of the Regulations:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's view that Regulation 104(3) is ultra vires and unreasonable to be incorrect. The Court held that the regulation falls within the scope of the Board's authority and is not inconsistent with the provisions of the parent enactment. The Court also rejected the High Court's application of the doctrine of implied power and obligation, stating that there is no implied right to demand disclosure or inspection when an express provision prohibits it.

5. Impact on Public Interest and Administrative Feasibility:
The Supreme Court emphasized the practical difficulties and administrative burden that would result from allowing inspection and revaluation as a matter of right. The Court noted that the Board conducts examinations for a large number of candidates, and allowing such rights would lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty regarding examination results. The Court also highlighted that the Board has established a comprehensive system to ensure fairness and accuracy in the evaluation process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Regulation 104(3) and set aside the High Court's judgments. The Court dismissed the writ petitions and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the regulation-making body has the authority to decide on policies for conducting examinations and evaluating performance, and that the principles of natural justice do not apply to the evaluation process.