Facts of the Case
A candidate appeared in a government-conducted examination. The answer script was evaluated by a government teacher appointed as an examiner. Due to negligent evaluation, marks were incorrectly awarded, resulting in the candidate being declared failed, despite having written the examination competently. The candidate alleges that the evaluation lacked due care and seeks to hold either the teacher personally or the government vicariously liable for the loss suffered, including loss of academic opportunity and career prospects. The issue arises whether such negligent evaluation attracts liability under Administrative Law principles.
Issues in the Case
- Whether negligent evaluation of answer scripts amounts to an administrative wrong.
- Whether a government teacher can be held personally liable for negligence.
- Whether the government is liable under the principle of vicarious liability.
- Whether courts can interfere in academic and examination matters.
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
Evaluation of answer scripts is considered an administrative and academic function involving discretion and expertise. Courts generally avoid interference in academic matters unless there is malafide, arbitrariness, or gross negligence.
In Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984), the Supreme Court held that courts should not sit in appeal over academic evaluation, as it would open floodgates of litigation. Mere negligence or error of judgment does not justify liability.
Further, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, acts done in discharge of statutory duties are generally protected unless there is wilful misconduct. In Chairman, CBSE v. Khushboo Shrivastava (2014), the Court held that revaluation or liability arises only when rules permit or when there is clear violation of procedure.
Personal liability arises only if the act is malicious or outside official duty. Ordinary negligence in official duty does not attract tortious liability against the government.
Possible Judgement
The court is likely to hold that neither the government teacher nor the government can be made liable for mere negligent evaluation unless gross negligence, malafide intention, or violation of statutory rules is proved. Evaluation being an academic function involving discretion, judicial interference is limited. The appropriate remedy for the candidate would be revaluation or re-examination, if permissible under examination rules. Therefore, no civil liability would arise against the teacher or the government in the absence of proven misconduct.
About lawgnan
Administrative Law questions involving government liability, negligence, and academic discretion are common in LLB and judiciary exams. Understanding when courts interfere and when they exercise restraint is crucial for scoring well. For more exam-ready Administrative Law notes, case-based answers, judicial review concepts, and simplified explanations, visit lawgana.in. LawGana is created especially for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive examinations. Follow lawgana.in to strengthen your conceptual clarity and answer-writing skills with confidence.
