It is trite to say, often, a proposition of law as laid down in a case is as good as the facts of the case.
We say so in view of the fact, matters of education must be left to educationists, of course subject to being governed by relevant statutes and regulations. It is not the function of this Court to sit as an expert body over decision of experts, especially when the experts are all eminent people. This aspect has received judicial imprimatur even earlier and we are not saying something new. We may refer to Zahoor Ahmad Rather, (2019) 2 SCC 404 in this behalf: (a) it is for the employer to consider what functionality of qualification and content of course of studies would lead to acquisition of an eligible qualification; and (b) such matters must be left to educationists.
– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020].
Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, (2004) 6 SCC 714 observed, in absence of any provision for re-evaluation, examinees have no right to claim or demand re-evaluation. As observed in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 sympathy or compassion does not play any role. Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 observed, academic matters are best left to academics.
– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh, [Civil Appeal No. 8037 of 2022] decided on 04.11.2022.