Telangana High Court
The Kaloji Narayana Rao University Of ... vs Dr. Devender Banavath on 2 February, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
W.A.No.32 of 2022
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.27869 of 2021 dt.24-12-2021.
2. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 12 and the learned Government Pleader for Health appearing for respondent No.13.
3. It has been contended by the appellants that the respondent Nos.1 to 12 are the Writ Petitioners and they have filed the Writ Petition seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 (i) in getting petitioners' answer scripts evaluated in the digital evaluation process by not putting tick marks, 'x' marks, making remarks, etc. on the digital answer scripts by using digital tools like stylus, etc., in respect of the Post Graduate Courses' Examinations held in the month of July/August 2021 contrary to the Principles laid down in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar v. State of A.P.1 and Dr.J.Kiran Kumar v. State of A.P.2 and (ii) in not allowing the petitioners to physically verify their answer scripts and also in not furnishing copies of 1 2016 (6) ALT 408 2 2017 (6) ALT 213 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022 their answer scripts as highly illegal and arbitrary."
Learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition vide orders dt.24-12-2021 and passed the following order:
"It is informed to this Court that supplementary examinations are scheduled from 29.12.2021. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to defer the supplementary examinations to some other date until evaluation of answer scripts of the petitioners herein are done following the principles laid down in the decisions of Dr. P.Kiran Kumar's case (1 surpa) and Dr. J. Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra) by using tick marks, 'x' marks, making remarks etc., on the digital answer scripts by using digital tools like stylus etc., and awarding marks on each answer script. The respondents are further directed to evaluate answer scripts of all the students who have failed in the examinations and not approached this Court. After declaration of results, the respondents are at liberty to reschedule the supplementary examinations. Further, to ensure fair play the respondents are directed to get the answer scripts evaluated through new examiners."
4. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a case reported in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others3, wherein the Supreme Court in para-16, held as under:
"The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and 3 (2009) 11 S.C.C. 726 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022 quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that there is no revaluation and as per the rules, only recounting is there. Whereas the learned Single Judge had directed for valuation of the answer scripts by following the principles laid down in the decisions of Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra) and till the answer scripts of the Writ Petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 12 are evaluated, directed the appellants-university to defer supplementary examinations to some other date until evaluation of answer scripts of the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 12 be evaluated by using tick marks, 'x' marks, making remarks etc. on the digital answer scripts by using digital tools like stylus etc. and awarding marks on each answer script. Learned Single Judge had further directed the appellants- University to evaluate answer scripts of all the students who have failed in the examinations and who have not approached this Court and after declaration of results, the appellants- University are at liberty to reschedule the supplementary examinations.
4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022
6. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that if the answer script of a student is evaluated by first examiner, the marks cannot be displayed on the answer scripts because the answer script has to be passed on to the next examiner. If the marks awarded to the first examiner are reflected in the answer script, then the second examiner may be influenced by the marks awarded by the first examiner. In order to ensure that examiners are not influenced by other examiners, the marks are awarded on a separate sheet instead of noting down on the answer scripts. If the directions given by the learned Single Judge are to be given effect to, then it becomes difficult to maintain secrecy of evaluation by independent examiners. On this count also, the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the appellants were not parties in the judgments rendered by this Court in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra) and those directions given in those cases are not binding on the appellants-University. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and permit the appellants to proceed with the supplementary examinations as per the schedule.
5 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 12 had contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed orders in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 12 and the learned counsel had brought to the notice of this Court that earlier W.P.Nos.2236 and 2412 of 2021 were disposed of on 06-04-2021, wherein, the categorical statement was made by the University that the answer scripts of the petitioners would be evaluated in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.13965 of 2019 dt.05-08-2019 and the learned counsel had contended that the orders passed in W.P.No.13965 of 2019 and batch of cases dt.05-08-2019 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioners by four examiners, out of whom, two should be internal examiners and two should be external examiners, and also directed to follow the guidelines laid down by this Court regarding digital evaluation in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (2 supra) and average of the marks awarded by the four examiners has to be taken into account for assessing the overall performance of the candidates in the P.G.Degree/Diploma courses.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 12 had contended that the appellants are the party respondents in the above said W.P.No.13965 of 2019 and batch and the appellants had carried the matter aggrieved by the said judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge by filing W.A. 6 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022 No.757 of 2019 before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to examine the entire case and after examining the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, was pleased to dismiss the said Writ Appeal vide orders dt.25-09-2019 and the appellants cannot once again re-agitate the very same issue before this Court as the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13569 of 2019 and batch dt.05-08-2019 have become final as the said orders were confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.757 of 2019 dt.25-09-2019.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 12 had further contended that earlier the examiners who are evaluating the answer scripts were not affixing their signatures while evaluating the answer scripts digitally and without any signatures, the examiners were awarding marks on a separate sheet which is creating confusion among the students whether the answer scripts have been properly evaluated or not. As per the guidelines framed by this Court in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra), the appellants have to follow the same while evaluating the answer scripts by four examiners and the learned Single Judge of this Court on the earlier occasion, disposed of W.P.No.13569 of 2019 dt.05-08-2019 by directing the appellants-University to get the answer scripts of the students evaluated by four examiners after 7 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022 following the guidelines framed in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra).
11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 12 had further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the appellants-University by the orders of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has only reiterated the law which has already laid by this Court in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra), which were also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 12 by following the law laid down by this Court Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra) and the Writ Petition earlier adjudicated by this Court in favour of the students in W.P.No.13965 of 2019 and batch was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.757 of 2019 dt.25-09-2019. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others (3 supra) and further contended that the said judgment has no application in the 8 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022 present case and in that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the interpretation of standards prescribed by the statutory professional technical bodies. But in the instant case, this Court has adjudicated two cases in favour of the students i.e. Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiran Kumar's case (2 supra) and the said judgments were also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. No regulations were furnished by the appellants to examine whether the directions given by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the regulations framed by the appellants- University or National Medical Commission. When the answer scripts of the students are scanned into four copies, then the four examiners will have to affix their signatures after evaluating the answer scripts. The apprehension of the appellants that if the examiners affixed their signatures and disclosed the marks and if the same paper is handed to next examiner, the second examiner would be influenced by the marks awarded by the first examiner has no substance because as per the digital evaluation, the answer scripts are to be scanned into four copies and the answer scripts have to be independently distributed to the each examiner so as to enable the examiners to evaluate the answer scripts and award marks and after evaluation of the marks, the examiner has to affix his signature, then only there would be transparency. Looking from any angle, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed in the 9 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.32 of 2022 Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed by the proposed respondents to permit them to implead them as respondent Nos.14 to 42 in the main Writ Appeal. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief as the proposed respondent Nos.14 to 42 are contending that only respondent Nos.1 to 12 answer scripts only to be evaluated but not in respect of all candidates. Such a request cannot be accepted since the evaluation of answer scripts has to be done uniformly to all the students irrespective of the fact that whether they have approached this Court or not. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 02.02.2022 kvr