Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yerra Trinadh vs The State Of Andhrapradesh on 19 September, 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S SOMAYAJULU
Writ Petition No.10376 of 2019
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The issue raised in this writ petition is by a group of medical students who are studying Medical Course in the University of Health Sciences. All the petitioners are prosecuting Post Graduation and diploma courses and have appeared for examinations. There is no difficulty with the facts. The only issue is about the manner in which the "digital evaluation" of their answer sheets was carried on. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not getting the answer scripts digitally evaluated as per the earlier orders of this Court, as illegal; arbitrary etc.
3. The specific case of the petitioners is that, the answer scripts in the examinations were not actually evaluated more so with reference to the earlier orders of this Court reported in Dr.P. Kishore Kumar and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare (E1) Department and others1 and Dr.J Kiran Kumar and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare (E1) Department, Amaravathi and others2.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent university filed his counter affidavit in which it is very clearly mentioned that they had engaged a third party agency and provided adequate training and also 1 2016 (6) ALT 408 2 2017 (6) ALT 213 2 DVSS, J W.P No.10376 of 2019 safe guards to the examiners who were to examine the answer sheets. According to the prevalent system, each answer script shall be evaluated by four different examiners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent university that the original answer sheet is scanned and is uploaded in the computer system and each examiner is given separate code and password. Only with the said code and password, he can access the answer sheet for the purpose of evaluation. The requisite training has also been given to the examiners as per the counter affidavit and they were also trained to usage of tools like stylus marks, tick marks or 'X' marks for correction. In addition, the counter also states that the examiner is at liberty to make underlining or to make comments etc.
5. When the matter was initially taken for hearing, this Court was not satisfied that the prima facie case was made out. The 11th petitioner had parellely applied under the Right To Information Act to verify the answer sheet. The University authorities permitted her to see the answer script personally. Thereafter an additional affidavit was filed by the 11th petitioner stating that there is no proof at all to show that they were actually evaluated by the examiner. Basing on the said additional affidavit, this Court passed an order directing the University authorities to produce the answer scripts of petitioner Nos.5, 9, 11 and 20 who are chosen randomly. An officer of respondent university who is fully conversant with the method of electronic evaluation of answer scripts was also directed to be present. In response to that, the Registrar and Controller of Examinations himself has personally appeared before this Court and also produced four answer sheets, as per the directions of the Court. The answer sheets which are produced are in original. None of the answer sheets contain any mark, to say that they have been actually 3 DVSS, J W.P No.10376 of 2019 evaluated. On questioning, the Registrar submits that the answer sheets are digitally sent to four examiners. Even the scanned copies are in the very same physical shape as the original sheets produced. The Registrar candidly admits that there are no marks present on the scanned copies also. The digital sheets are produced in connected W.P No.9486 of 2019. Both cases were heard together today. The University relies upon the marks that are awarded by each of the examiners. These marks are noted on Script Marks Report on the T.V screen. Each examiner sends the report back to the University which is downloaded. The average of all the four Script Marks Report are taken and this average of those four evaluation is the actual mark awarded to the student. The University has implicit faith and belief on the examiner. They rely upon this "Script Marks Report" as proof of evaluation. The Script Marks Report is the only place where the marks are entered by the examiner.
6. The question therefore that falls for consideration is:1 Whether the examiners in question and the University, have followed the learned Single Judge of this Court and the directions of this Court. Even when the matter was (for the first time) heard and decided by this Court in October, 2016, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr.P. Kishore Kumar and others (1st cited supra) directed the University authorities to produce the copies. He clearly noted that the scanned answer script do not bear the evaluation marks or the remarks of the examiner or the marks allotted by the examiner to each question. This is clearly found in para No.26 of the reported judgment. The primary evidence as per the learned Single Judge to discharge the onus of evaluation is, the evaluated copies and not the data entered on a separate Scripts Marks Report. This judgment was pronounced in the year when the digital 4 DVSS, J W.P No.10376 of 2019 evaluation of answer sheets had commenced. Some teething troubles were noticed and directions were given by this Court. This judgment was followed by another judgment by another the learned Single Judge in a case reported in Dr.J Kiran Kumar and others (2nd cited supra). Even in the said judgment, this Court referred to the earlier batch of the cases and held that if the digital method is transparent, each answer script evaluated by the examiner by using the tools provided should be saved for future review in order to see whether the examiner has applied his mind while evaluating the answer script or not.
7. Despite, both these judgments being pronounced, it is apparent that the examiners in this case, have not followed the instructions given by the respondent University and this Court. The respondent University has stated on oath in its counter affidavit that they have trained the examiners and have given them all the necessary tools for evaluating the answer scripts. Despite the training and despite the availability of the tools, it is clear that the examiners have not utilized the tools and have not made any mark whatsoever on the answer script. Except for the implicit belief that the University has, there is no proof available to show that the answer sheet has been actually evaluated by the examiner. In the digital method of evaluation of the answer script, stylus marks should have been found on the downloaded answer script itself. Unfortunately, due to digitalization, the same is not been done.
8. The University authorities, in the opinion of this Court, cannot to be actually faulted with for the reason, that it is very clearly stated that the examiners were provided with the necessary tools. The discretion to put stylus marks, tick marks and 'X' marks is of the examiner. Although the University cannot be faulted still, they are also vicariously liable for 5 DVSS, J W.P No.10376 of 2019 the present situation. In view of the fact that the actual clarifications given by the Registrar of the University in person along with the answer scripts does not meet the tests that are laid down in the two judgments reported and referred to earlier, this Court has no choice, other than to allow the writ petition according to the prayer sought for by the petitioners.
9. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to get the petitioners' answer scripts once again evaluated as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners. They are also directed to give clear and categorical instructions to the said new set of examiners to physically put the marks etc., on the uploaded answer script. The identified Globerana Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad should be directed to teach the examiner, the manner of evaluating the digital/uploaded answer sheet (if necessary). The corrected sheet must be preserved for future review and in order to seek whether the examiner has applied his mind while evaluating the answer scripts or not. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from today.
10. At this stage, the Registrar of the University submits that they were facing some practical difficulties in finding four examiners in the specialized subjects. The majority of petitioners who are present in the Court, have agreed that they have already applied for the supplementary examination. In the view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that all the petitioners should be allowed to write the supplementary examination. The few who have not paid the supplementary exam fee must be allowed to pay the fee. The result, of the supplementary examination of only those candidates who had failed in this examination 6 DVSS, J W.P No.10376 of 2019 held in April/May, 2019 will be released. Otherwise the result, of the others who have successful in the examination held in April/May, 2019 need not be released. By appearing for the supplementary examination, the students/petitioners are not giving up any of their rights. This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because University has expressed its difficulty in immediately finding four examiners who are qualified in this particular subject and who are also computer literate to correct the papers in a scanned mode at such short notice. At the same time the supplementary exams are around the corner. Hence, the above order is passed.
10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S SOMAYAJULU 19.09.2019 Rvk