2008 (10) TMI 691 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to order re-verification/re-valuation of answer scripts.
2. Validity of the Executive Council's decision to cancel the re-verification results.
3. Legality of the High Court's judgment upholding the Vice-Chancellor's actions.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to order re-verification/re-valuation of answer scripts:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no jurisdiction u/s 12(2) of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act to order re-verification of the answer scripts of the students. However, the Supreme Court found that a conjoint and meaningful reading of Section 12(2) with Section 12(3) of the Act indicates that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to take appropriate action relating to the affairs of the University, including the conduct of examinations. The Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University, entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration. The Supreme Court concluded that the Vice-Chancellor's power includes the authority to order re-evaluation of answer scripts if the situation demands, even in the absence of a specific provision.

2. Validity of the Executive Council's decision to cancel the re-verification results:
The Supreme Court noted that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised his power to order re-verification of answer scripts under pressure and coercion from the students and their parents, not independently on merits. The re-verification process was confined to 436 students who had applied for re-totalling, not re-valuation. The methodology adopted by the Committee for re-valuation was questionable, as they completed re-verification of 1082 answer scripts in two days, indicating that it was not properly done. The Executive Council's decision to cancel the result of the students based on re-verification and giving an opportunity to the failed students to re-appear in the examination was approved by the Vice-Chancellor himself. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the Executive Council's decision to cancel the re-verification results.

3. Legality of the High Court's judgment upholding the Vice-Chancellor's actions:
The learned single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by the students, holding that the Vice-Chancellor had the power u/s 12(2) of the Act to appoint a committee for re-verification of the answer scripts. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this judgment, concluding that the Vice-Chancellor had no jurisdiction to order re-verification. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Division Bench's finding regarding the Vice-Chancellor's power but upheld the ultimate conclusion of the Division Bench to cancel the re-verification results due to the improper exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed NTR University of Health Sciences to hold a supplementary examination for all students who had not yet cleared the first year MBBS examination held in September/October 2006. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.