Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Movva Uday Teja vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 May, 2024

APHC010310552018
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                  [3333]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 14113/2018

Between:

Movva Uday Teja                                          ...PETITIONER

                                  AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. KONEY SATYANANDA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP)

  2. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR (SC FOR Dr NTR HEALTH U)

The Court made the following:
 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"....to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (i) declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting manual evaluation in respect of petitioner's failure Subject i.e., Surgery (Theory + Oral examination) irrespective of the fact whether there is a difference of 20% marks in first and second evaluations and also the action of the 2nd respondent in not producing answer sheets of the petitioners to them in order to counter check whether their examination papers are correctly evaluated or not and marks were awarded to them are correct or not as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, non-application of mind besides violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to conduct manual evaluation in respect of petitioner's failure subject i.e., Surgery (Theory + Oral examination) and also direct the 2nd respondent to produce answer sheets of petitioners to them in so far as their failed subjects are concerned...."

2. When the matter came up for admission on 27.04.2018, this Court passed the following interim order:

"....there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to have the answer script of the petitioner in Surgery (theory) to be manually evaluated by entrusting the said job to a competent evaluator who was not involved in the process of digital evaluation of the petitioner's Surgery (theory) answer script. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

3. In view of the above interim order passed earlier, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KGR