Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y.S.R. University Of Health Sciences vs B.Sanju Sudha on 5 September, 2023
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.A. No. 877 OF 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
02. 05.09.2023 AVSS, J & RRR, J
W.A.No.877 of 2023
Admit.
I.A.No.1 of 2023
Heard the learned Advocate General
representing Y.S.R. University of Health
Sciences and Sri M.V. Rajaram, learned
counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner.
2. In the main Writ Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15426 of 2023. The main Writ Petition came to be instituted by the 1st respondent herein assailing the action of the appellants-University in not re- evaluating the answer sheets of Final Year MBBS General Medicine Examination papers Parts I&II by third expert committee and not allotting appropriate marks as per the answers to the questions. The learned Single Judge, after calling for the answer sheets, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents- appellants University to take steps for verification/ evaluation of answer scripts of SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE the writ petitioner by third examiner/ evaluator, who must be an external subject expert as per the list of University.
3. According to the learned Advocate General, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to law and that in the absence of any regulation for re-evaluation, the learned Single Judge erred in ordering re-evaluation. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned Advocate General places reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra Vs., Devarsh Nath Gupta and Ors. [(2023)2 SCR 471] and Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vs., Dr. Yerra Trinadh and others [2023(1) ALT 26.
4. In Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University's case, the Honble Supreme Court, at paragraph 13, held as follows:
"13. It is hardly a matter of doubt that the Statute governing the examination in question does not provide for re-evaluation and scrutiny of the answer sheets. Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator. Therefore, in the ordinary circumstances, with reference to the enunciations aforesaid, the process as adopted by the SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE High Court could not have been given our imprimatur. However, on the peculiar facts and in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, we are refraining from interfering in the substantive part of the relief granted to the writ petitioner, particularly for the reasons that a direct prohibition in the Statute in question has not been shown; the original examiner seems to have totally omitted to award the marks in relation to answer Nos.2, 5(a) and 5(b); the process of evaluation by other examiners has been adopted and taken forward by the High Court by providing for awarding of average of the marks of the three examiners; and any interference at this length of time might entail serious adverse consequences to the writ petitioner. However, we need to make it clear in no uncertain terms that non-interference in the present case is not to be construed as any endorsement by this Court to the process adopted by the High Court."
5. In Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences' case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 9 and 10 held as follows:
"9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for re-evaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in the absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re- evaluation and that too while exercising SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved.
10. Even otherwise, in the present case, the University has adopted the digital evaluation which has been subsequently modified/ improved and the deficiencies have been removed, which has now been approved by the High Court in the recent decision in Writ Petition No.15865/2022. The digital evaluation process is reported to be scrupulously followed by the University. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the University on use of digital evaluation, it appears that all precautions are being taken to have the accurate evaluation digitally. There are specific instructions and trainings to the examiners while conducting digital evaluation. It is reported that the faculty has utilised the updated software by using the tools and annotations incorporated in the software adopted by the University. In any case, in absence of any regulation for re- evaluation of the answer scripts, either in the MCI rules or in the University Rules, the High Court is not justified in ordering re- evaluation of the answer scripts. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that sympathy or compassion does not pay any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet."
6. According to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that there is a prima facie case made out in favour of the petitioners-appellants.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner has assured that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner will not move any Contempt Application.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
8. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to adjourn the matter by two weeks.
9. Post the matter on 20.09.2023.
________ AVSS,J ________ RRR, J Ks