Telangana High Court
Ms. G. Harisri vs Dr. N.T.R. University Of Health ... on 10 July, 2018
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITON No.22614 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 28-06-2018, wherein and whereby, the request of the petitioner for revaluation of MBBS Final year answer scripts of the petitioner in the subject of 'General Medicine Paper 1 and 2' exam held during January and February, 2018 in terms of judgment of this Court in WP.No.26929 of 2016 and batch, dated 31-10-2016 was rejected.
The case of the petitioner is that she appeared in January, 2018 MBBS examinations and the petitioner made application for re-totalling and the same was considered by the respondent-university by appointing a committee for retotalling of marks and after scrutiny, the committee submitted report that there is no change of result in retotalling and again she made application under Right To Information Act to the respondent-university requests for personal verification of the answer scripts and the same was allowed. That personal verification was done on 23-05-2018 and she personally verified the answer scripts and gave acknowledgment stating that she found all the answer scripts valued properly by the examiner and she was fully satisfied regarding valuation of the answer scripts. The petitioner filed another representation on 19-06-2018 seeking to consider her case for revaluation of answer scripts in terms of the judgment in WP.No.26929 of 2016 and Batch, dated 31-10-2016. But the same was 2 considered and the impugned order is passed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is every likelihood that the petitioner's answer scripts valued through digital evaluation are not properly evaluated, the respondent-authorities without considering the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment of this Court in WP.No.26929 of 2016 and Batch rejected her case and the same analogy, which is applicable to PG Medical Courses is also applicable to the case of the petitioner, since the some flaws are likely to arise in digital evaluation in case of MBBS Courses also. Heard Sri T.Nageshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-university who submits that the petitioner was given opportunity twice and retotalling was done accordingly and second time, she verified original answer scripts on 23-05-2018 and she was satisfied again there also. In this case, it is to be seen that in all the five papers valuation was done digitally and the petitioner passed in four papers. The petitioner applied for retotalling and the same was also done. There is no change of the result and the petitioner was allowed for personal verification of her original answer scripts on 23-05-2018 and again in pursuance to orders of this Court in WP.No.18750 of 2018, dated 07-06-2018 the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner. Admittedly there is no regulation providing revaluation. 3
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 03-07-2018 Nvl 4