Telangana High Court
Mogili Kinnera vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.1031 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.
2. Petitioner herein is 1st year MBBS student. She has appeared Human Anatomy examination held in the month of November, 2024. She expected more than 60% marks in each paper. But, she got 33 marks in Human Anatomy paper-I and 35 marks in Human Anatomy paper-II out of 100 marks in Human Anatomy. Results were declared on 12.12.2024. Therefore, she has submitted a representation, dated 13.12.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to permit her to re-verify KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 2 the said papers. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said application, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same.
3. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner filed W.P.No.36069 of 2024. Vide order dated 24.12.2024, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee appointed by respondent No.2 by paying Rs.1,000/- per each paper with a request to permit her to go through and verify the answer sheets in respect of Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy subject and on submitting such representation and payment of fee, this Court directed the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to go through the aforesaid papers for the purpose of re-vivification and re-totaling of marks, etc.
4. In compliance with the said order, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 28.12.2024 to the respondents. But the respondents deferred the matter to KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 3 02.01.2025. On 02.01.2025, respondent No.2 failed to permit the petitioner to re-verify and note down the discrepancies in the answer sheets, due to procedural restrictions. Despite identifying grave errors and omissions in the evaluation, respondents refused to re- evaluate or correct the marks, citing lack of authority.
5. It is contended by petitioner that the evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the answers and committed procedural lapses. The same is evident from the marks awarded by the evaluators by summoning Papers-I and II answer scripts of Human Anatomy subject to verify the evaluation errors and procedural irregularities.
6. It is further contended by the petitioner that she has written accurate answers including diagrams wherever necessary. Even then, she has observed significant discrepancies in the evaluation. She has also mentioned marks awarded by the evaluators in respect of said Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy subject. The KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 4 same is without any basis. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not correctly revaluating the petitioner's marks awarded in Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy subject supplementary examination held in November, 2024, as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to re-evaluate answer scripts of Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy subject in the presence of petitioner and a senior Medical Officer.
7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter contending that respondents are conducting digital valuation since inception of respondent No.2 - University and the said process of digital valuation has been upheld by this Court. Each answer sheet undergoes two independent valuations conducted by two different examiners and in case of difference in award of more than 15% marks between first and second evaluations, third evaluation is being conducted and final score will be determined averaging the evaluation and rounding off to the next KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 5 higher figure. Therefore, digital valuation is transparent and following the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME) guidelines. In subjects that have two papers, a candidate must secure minimum 40% of marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass in the said subject.
8. The evaluation of answer scripts is being done by faculty members, who are eligible to be appointed as Under Graduate examiners, in accordance with NMC Regulations. Marks awarded by the evaluators and their judgment cannot be questioned.
9. Petitioner has secured only 31.5% marks in theory in Human Anatomy, which is less than minimum of 40% marks required in the final examination in theory. Therefore, she has been declared as failed in accordance with the prevalent NMC Regulations.
10. It is further contended that petitioner could not secure minimum marks of 40% to be considered along with practical marks to obtain minimum of 50% for KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 6 passing in the subject. Petitioner after two attempts could not passed in Human Anatomy subject attributing the wrong evaluation of the answer scripts without any basis. The pass percentage of I-year MBBS is about more than 90%. The petitioner has to work hard and study to improve her knowledge to pass in the examination without blaming the evaluation process. The examiners have been appointed, in accordance with NMC Regulations with the required experience of teaching. The digital valuation procedure as detailed above clearly indicates that none of the examiners will be aware of the identity of the student whose answer script is being evaluated. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of the aforesaid papers in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Officer.
11. It is further contended that since the difference between 1st and 2nd evaluation in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II is more than 15%, the same was referred to 3rd evaluator, who awarded 23.5 marks out of KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 7 100, which was rounded off to 24. Therefore, there is no error in evaluation. There is no provision in the Rules of respondent No.2 - University for re-evaluation. Moreover, petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of the aforesaid papers as a matter of right in routine course. With the aforesaid submissions, respondents sought to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
12. As discussed supra, petitioner is seeking re- evaluation of Human Anatomy Papers-I and II of her I-year MBBS. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Rules of respondent No.2 for conducting of revolution.
13. However, re-evaluation of answer scripts is no more res integra.
14. This Court in Dr.Sreekar Amaravadi v. State of Telangana 1 relying on the guidelines issued in Dr. Kishore Kumar v. State of A.P.2, Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission3, President, Board of 1 2022 SCC Online TS 2972 2 (2016) 6 ALT 408 3 (2007) 3 SCC 720 KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 8 Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar 4, CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay 5, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Yerra Trinadh6, Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.7, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission 8, the Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. v. Khushboo Shrivastava9, Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Arun Kumar 10, Jaydeo v. State of Maharastra 11, Indo Swiss Time Ltd. V. Umarao12 and Mayank Garg v. Delhi High Court13, this Court held that student is entitled to verify or view the answer scripts. But student is not entitled to seek information with regard to the same under RTI Act, 2005.
15. This Court also considered the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the 4 (2007) 1 SCC 603 5 (2011) 8 SCC 497 6 2022 SCC Online SC 1520 7 (2018) 2 SCC 357 8 (2004) 6 SCC 714 9 (2014) 14 SCC 523 10 (2020 6 SCC 362 11 (2006) 2 Mah LJ 497 12 AIR 1981 P&H 213 13 (2022) 5 HCC (Del) 483 KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 9 aforesaid decisions that there is conflict between the decisions in Run Vijay Singh (supra) and Yerra Trinadh (supra). The principles laid down in Yerra Trinadh (supra) prohibits re-evaluation of answer scripts completely and does not confer any discretion on the High Courts to order re-evaluation. When there is conflict between decisions of two Benches, this Court has to follow one, which in its view expresses the correct decision of law. Thus, this Court held that there is no conflict between the decisions of Run Vijay Singh (supra) and Yerra Trinadh (supra). The decision in Yerra Trinadh (supra) deprecated the practice of High Courts in ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts as a matter of routine. The said decision cannot be interpreted to mean that High Courts have no power to order re- evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of rules permitting the same. A harmonious construction of the findings of both the decisions clearly indicates that in KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 10 rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can order re- evaluation of answer scripts
16. Thus, this Court held that only in exceptional cases, this Court can order re-evaluation of answer scripts even when the Rules are silent.
17. In Sahiti and others vs Chancellor, NTR University of Health Science and others14, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex court held that re- evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. However, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority. Thus, in the absence of Rules, this Court can order re-evaluation of answer scripts, but only in exceptional and rare cases. 14
(2009) 1 SCC 599 KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 11
18. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is relevant to note that the petitioner herein is prosecuting her I-year MBBS in CMR Institute of Medical College, Kandlakoya. She has appeared for I-Year MBBS supplementary examination conducted by respondent No.2 - University in November, 2024. She has secured 31 marks out of 100 marks (A- evaluator) and 34 marks out of 100 marks (B-evaluator) with regard to Human Anatomy Paper-I. Her average score is 33 out of 100 marks.
19. With regard to Human Anatomy Paper-II, she has secured 35 marks out of 100 marks (A-evaluator) and 21 marks out of 100 marks (B-evaluator). Since the difference is more than 15% between the marks awarded by two evaluators, her Human Anatomy Paper-II was evaluated by 3rd evaluator (C-evaluator), who in turn awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks. The same is rounded off to 24 marks. Thus, she has secured 30 marks out of 100 marks. Considering the said aspects, KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 12 more particularly, the difference between the marks awarded by A-evaluator and B-evaluator and as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay, vide order dated 24.12.2024 in W.P.No.36069 of 2024, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2 by way of submitting a representation and also paying an amount of Rs.1000/- per each paper with a request to verify the answer scripts and re-total the same. This Court also directed the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to go through the aforesaid two (2) papers for the purpose of re-verification and re-totaling of marks. Accordingly, petitioner was permitted to re-verify the answer scripts in respect of Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy I-year MBBS and re-totaling. She has mentioned the marks secured by her in respect of the aforesaid two papers in a Tabular form in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the writ affidavit.
KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 13
20. However, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 did not permit her to note the discrepancies in the answer sheets citing procedural restrictions. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there are grave errors and omissions in the evaluation. She specifically asserted that evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the answers and committed procedural lapses, as evident in the marks awarded. Therefore, she sought for summoning of Human Anatomy Papers-I and II answer scripts, which will be helpful to this Court to verify the evaluation errors and procedural irregularities.
21. In the light of the said submission, vide order dated 27.01.2025, this Court directed Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to furnish the marks awarded by the 3rd evaluator question wise in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II in a sealed cover. He has produced answer scripts of petitioner in respect of both the papers i.e., Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy Subject including marks awarded KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 14 by 1st, 2nd and 3rd evaluators in a sealed cover. This Court perused the same.
22. There is no dispute that 1st evaluator has awarded 31 marks out of 100 marks and 2nd evaluator has awarded 34 marks out of 100 marks to the petitioner in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-I. Average comes to 33 marks out of 100 marks. The difference between 1st and 2nd evaluator is only 3 marks. It is not more than 15% to evaluate the said paper by a 3rd evaluator.
23. In respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II, 1st evaluator has awarded 35 marks out of 100 marks, 2nd evaluator has awarded 21 marks out of 100 marks. There is difference of more than 15% in the marks awarded by both evaluators. The difference is 14 marks. Therefore, the said paper was evaluated by 3rd evaluator. The said answer scripts was referred to 3rd evaluator for the purpose of evaluation by respondent No.2 - University as per Rules. The 3rd evaluator has awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks to the petitioner herein and the same was KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 15 rounded off to 24 marks. Therefore, the average is 30 marks out of 100.
24. Therefore, there is no violation of procedure or Rule by respondent No.2 - University in evaluating answer scripts of the petitioner.
25. With regard to evaluation, it is apt to note that it is a skilled job, it requires expertise and qualification to the evaluators. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that evaluators have been appointed by respondent No.2 - University, in accordance with the NMC Regulations with required experience of teaching. They are adopting digital evaluation procedure as per the guidelines issued by the NMC. Therefore, as per the said procedure none of the examiners shall be aware of the identity of the students, whose answer sheets is being evaluated. Respondents have specifically contended that they are following the guidelines issued by the NMC and also Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBMC) including its notification dated 01.08.2023, KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 16 guidelines, dated 01.08.2023 and its Corrigendum, dated 01.09.2023.
26. As per the said guidelines, the subjects that have two papers, the student must secure minimum 40% of marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass in the said subject. The criteria for passing in a subject is candidate shall obtain 50% marks in aggregate and 60:40 (minimum) or 40:60 (minimum) in University conducted examination separately in Theory and in Practical (practical includes: practical/clinical and viva voce) in order to be declared and passed in that subject.
27. It is apt to note that there is no challenge to the Rules and Procedure adopted by respondent No.2 with regard to evaluation of answer scripts.
28. It is contended by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that petitioner was admitted in to MBBS Course in the year 2023-24 in NRI category under Management Quota in CMR Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner has secured 154 marks out of 720 marks and a NEET-UG KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 17 rank of '9,18,203'. Petitioner could not get seat under Competent Authority Quota, secured very low marks and low rank in NEET-UG-2023. Petitioner has appeared in I- year MBBS Regular examination conducted in August, 2024 and failed in all three subjects i.e., Human Anatomy, Biochemistry and Physiology, she got 35, 52 and 76 marks out of 200 marks respectively in all the aforesaid 3 subjects. Thus, she has secured 17.5% in Human Anatomy, 26% in Physiology and 38% in Biochemistry in theory failing by a gross margin of marks. The least marks were secured in Human Anatomy. Therefore, petitioner has appeared supplementary examination conducted in November, 2024 and passed in Biochemistry and Physiology. She failed in Human Anatomy subject.
29. As discussed supra, petitioner is seeking re- evaluation of her answer scripts in respect of Human Anatomy Papers-I and II in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Officer on the ground that KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 18 evaluators did not apply their minds while assessing the answers and committed procedural lapses, which is evident from the marks awarded by them. There is difference of 14 marks in the marks awarded by 1st evaluator and 2nd evaluator in respect of Human Anatomy Subject Paper-II. 3rd evaluator is awarded 23.5 marks, which is rounded off to 24 marks.
30. As discussed supra, petitioner herein cannot seek re-evaluation as a matter of right in a routine course. This Court can order for re-evaluation in rare cases and exceptional cases. Petitioner has to make out that her case is rare and exceptional case.
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahithi (supra) held that evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 19 and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority.
32. In Dr.Srikar Amaravadi (supra), this Court held that in rear and exceptional cases this Court can order re-evaluation of answer scripts even when the Rules are silent.
33. As discussed supra, in the present case petitioner is seeking re-evaluation of the answer scripts in her presence and also in the presence of a senior Medical Officer only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the answer scripts since the evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the answer sheets and committed procedural lapses. The only basis for the said allegation of the petitioner is the difference between marks awarded by 1st evaluator and 2nd evaluator in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II. With regard to Paper-I, the difference is only 3 marks and the average is 33% out of 100 marks. With regard to Human Anatomy KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 20 Paper-II, 3rd evaluator has awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks and the same is rounded off to 24.
34. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no procedural irregularity committed by evaluators. Petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of the aforesaid papers in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Officer on the aforesaid grounds.
34. It is relevant to note that considering the said submissions this Court directed 2nd and 3rd respondents to produce the said answer sheets. They have produced the aforesaid answer sheets in a sealed covers. This Court perused the same. There is no discrepancy and procedural lapses. However, this Court cannot come to a conclusion and give a finding that evaluators did not awarded marks properly.
35. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, in Human Anatomy Subject Paper-II the difference between the marks awarded by 1st and 2nd evaluator is 14. Therefore, the same was evaluated by 3rd evaluator, who KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 21 awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks, which was rounded off to 24 marks. The average is 30 out of 100 marks. Therefore, the petitioner cannot allege that there is violation of procedure and that there are discrepancies in the answer scripts. Petitioner also cannot allege that evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the marks. As discussed supra, evaluation is a skilled job and it requires expertise. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that they are evaluating the answer scripts digitally and none of the examiners will be aware of the identity of the students whose answer scripts is being evaluated.
36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present case of the petitioner is not a rear or exceptional case to order for re-evaluation in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Officer as sought by the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought in the present writ and it is liable to be dismissed.
KL,J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 22
37. Accordingly, this Wirt Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
38. Registry is directed to return the answer scripts to Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in a sealed cover under due acknowledgement.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 05.02.2025.
Note: issue CC today.
PN/vvr