Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Lachi Naga Vennela vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 July, 2020
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.8213 OF 2020
ORDER:
The writ petitioner, who prosecutes her MBBS IV year in Narayana Medical College, Nellore, filed the instant writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in evaluating her Final MBBS Part-I examination in the subjects of 509A-ENT, 510A-Opthalmology held in January/February, 2020 without following the earlier orders of this High Court and declaring the result as 'failed' in the two subjects of ENT and Opthalmology, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to get her answer scripts in the subjects of ENT and Opthalmology of Final Part-I re-evaluated by strictly following the directions given by this court in earlier judgments.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner appeared for Final MBBS Part-I examination (Hall Ticket No.16054098) conducted by the 2nd respondent in the month of January/Febaury, 2020. The results were announced and she came to know that she was failed in two Theory subjects of 509A-ENT and 510A-Opthalmology wherein she secured 22 and 21 marks respectively out of the minimum required 25 marks each. The petitioner claims that she is a brilliant student and in all the academic years she secured distinction and there was no reason that she should fail in the final MBBS Part-I. She suspects that mistakes might have crept in while digitally 2 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 evaluating her answer sheets in the Theory subjects i.e., 509A-ENT and 510A-Opthalmology. She narrated certain instances of how mistakes might have taken place. It is stated that as per the University norms, answer sheets are evaluated digitally. The service provider is authorized to decode, scan and upload the answer sheets on the computer to transfer them to the respective examiners for correction. In the process, if the server was down all the answer sheets might not have been uploaded correctly and some of them might be missing. The service provider does not take meticulous care to see whether all the papers have been uploaded or not.
(a) The next apprehension of the petitioner is that while digitally evaluating the answer sheets, the examiners did not use the evaluation tools properly. On 07.04.2020, the petitioner approached the University authorities and submitted a representation for re-evaluation, but no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner strongly suspects about the method of evaluation adopted by the 2nd respondent University. In similar instances, in W.P.Nos.9486 of 2019 and 10376 of 2019, this court relying upon the earlier judgments in the case of Dr. P. Kishore Kumar and Dr. J. Kiran Kumar, allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to once again evaluate the answer scripts. In those cases on noticing that the answer sheets which were produced before the court did not contain the evaluation marks, the court observed that except entering marks in the sheet appended on the top of answer sheets there was no trace of 3 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 evaluation of answer sheets. The petitioner claims that her case also falls within the same parameters.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material averments and inter alia contending thus.
(a) The petitioner appeared for Final MBBS Part-I examinations in the month of January/February, 2020. The University in the month of November, 2019 vide its letter No.1111/E1/MBBS/Exams/2019/1 resolved to implement the digital evaluation of answer scripts from July/August, 2017 examinations onwards.
(b) The petitioner failed in the two subjects of ENT, Ophthalmology and passed in Community Medicine (SPM).
In fact, the University has resolved to introduce double evaluation system in the year 2011. Under this system, each paper of the subject shall be valued by two examiners independently and the average of the marks shall be taken into consideration for final adjudication of the marks in that paper. If there is a variation of 20% or above between the 1st and 2nd valuations, the answer scripts will be referred to 3rd examiner and the script will be referred to the 3rd examiner. The system was adopted to increase the accuracy in the evaluation system and transparency.
(c) While so, the University introduced digital evaluation (Online evaluation) of the answer scripts of the PG Degree/Diploma 4 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 examinations held in the month of May/June, 2016. Initially the Pilot Project was entrusted to M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad which has scanned answer scripts for online evaluation during October, 2015 PG examinations and the same were evaluated by the online examiners. The Professors who valued the answer scripts expressed their satisfaction of digital evaluation and opined that digital evaluation is beneficial when compared to OMR filling and also that it is a time saving process.
(d) Gradually the digital valuation centres were established in all practical centres and the University has informed to the M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad to send their teams to the colleges to assess/verify the infrastructure facilities for establishment of digital valuation centres. The University has given instructions to the Principals of all PG Medical Colleges and requested them to supervise the process of valuation and make necessary arrangements to establish the digital valuation centres within the stipulated dates.
(e) Having been satisfied with the Pilot Project of digital valuation, the University in order to adopt the said system placed the proposal in the meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.07.2016 which approved the digital evaluation. Thereafter, the University started digitally evaluating the answer sheets and the manual valuation was dispensed with.
5
UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020
(f) The allegations of the petitioner that the University has not followed the guidelines issued by this court in W.P.Nos.26929 of 2016 and batch (P. Kishore Kumar and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)1 is not correct. In pursuance of the said judgment, the University has taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out in that judgment and included the system of digital evaluation.
(g) Further allegation of the petitioner that all the answer sheets of the petitioner might not be uploaded and some sheets might be missing during the process of scanning and uploading is not correct because the University has given a single booklet with each page containing the unique barcode of the concerned booklet along with page numbers. After receiving the booklets/answer sheets from the respective colleges, the University scanned the entire booklet at the University premises at the instance of the camp Officer along with the Technical staff. While scanning the said answer scripts of entire booklet, the question of missing their answer sheets does not arise because each page of the booklet having unique barcode with page number and if any page in the serial goes missing for scanning, the system does not accept for further scanning of the remaining pages of the booklet, unless those missing pages are scanned first. Further, the University has sent letters to the concerned valuation centres of the concerned colleges for giving proper training to their valuation Officers with the help of technical staff provided by M/s.Globarena 1 2016(6) ALT 408 6 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad. Only after such verification, the digital valuation has been started. The University created ID and Password to the examiners and with the help of the same, the examiners have received the answer scripts and evaluated them. Further, the examiners were made available, the technical tools for putting the remarks viz., (√) and (X) etc. The petitioner has approached the Court without utilizing the provision made by the University through the process of re-totalling. Thus, all the rules and regulations have been followed and there is no scope for revaluation. As per the resolution of Executive Counsel dated 21.06.2016, the valuation of the answer scripts is only on digital basis but not manual.
(h) The University implemented the digital valuation for Under Graduate courses in the year 2017. The petitioner herein passed her First year MBBS in 2017 and Second Year MBBS in 2019 through the digital mode of evaluation, but she never raised any objection then but now, she made a complaint because she failed which is untenable. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner have no application as they relate to PG courses. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy and Sri G. Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.
5. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the answer sheets of the petitioner were not at all evaluated by the examiners which is writ large from the fact that in spite of the 2nd 7 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 respondent/University providing them technical tools for evaluation like stylus marks, tick marks, 'X' marks and providing training through M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad in digital evaluation of the answer sheets, no such marks or comments were mentioned on the answer sheet by the concerned examiners. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that expect mentioning the marks in a separate 'Script Marks Report', the examiners have not mentioned any relevant comments or put tick marks on the digital answer scripts. Therefore, the answer sheets were not evaluated at all. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra) and J. Kiran Kumar and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others2 while deprecating the action of the examiners in not placing any remarks on the digital answer sheets relating to PG Medical examination, observed that it would amount to non- evaluation and directed the 2nd respondent/University to re-evaluate the answer sheets. The above judgments were followed in similar other cases i.e., W.P.Nos.10376 of 2019 and 1956 of 2020 and similar orders were passed. He thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.
6. In oppugnition, the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent argued that for a fair and transparent evaluation, digital evaluation was introduced whereby answer scripts will be evaluated by four examiners independently and the marks awarded by them will be clubbed and average marks will be taken, basing on which, results 2 2017(6) ALT 213 8 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 will be announced. He would submit that the services of M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad were engaged to provide technical assistance and training to the examiners in evaluating the answer scripts. Further, the said agency has provided tools for making remarks on the answer sheets. The stylus tool will assist the examiners to mention (√) marks or 'X' marks, underlines or comments etc., on the answer sheets. However, such mentioning of the remarks on the digital answer scripts is purely the discretion of the concerned examiners, but not a mandatory rule of the University. Therefore, mere non-mentioning of the remarks on the answer scripts cannot be treated as non-evaluation of the answer scripts at all. After the evaluation, the examiners shall indicate the marks awarded to each question on separate sheet called 'Script Marks Report'. In this case, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity for re-totalling of the answer scripts. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The point for consideration is whether the examiners have scrupulously followed the guidelines of the University as well as the observations made in the earlier decisions in the process of evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner and if not, whether the writ petition deserved to be allowed?
8. POINT: It should be noted that this Court on preliminary hearing of the parties, considered it apposite to direct the Controller of the Examinations and Technician who are conversant with digital 9 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 evaluation of the answer sheets to appear in person before the Court along with the answer sheets of ENT and Opthalmology papers and accordingly passed order on 17.06.2020. In compliance thereof, Dr. M.V. Bhimeswar, the Controller of Examinations of 2nd respondent along with the Technician was present in Court on 22.06.2020 and produced the Certified Copy of the answer sheets of the petitioner relating to ENT and Opthalmology. On perusal of the answer scripts, it must be said, they do not contain the marks like (√) mark, (X) mark, underlines or any other digital remarks. Even the marks granted to each question were also not mentioned on the answer sheets but they were appended on a separate sheet. No doubt, it is the argument in vehemence of learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent that the digital tools such as Wacom, stylus, etc., were provided to the examiners only to enable them to mention the digital remarks at their discretion, but however, no direction was given to them to invariably mention the remarks on the answer sheet. It must be noted, similar argument was raised by the University earlier also in the case of P. Kishore Kumar and others (1 supra). The observation of this Court is very important and hence extracted hereunder.
26. A careful scrutiny of the above excerpts discloses that except entering marks in the sheet appended on the top of an answer script, there is no trace of evaluation of answer sheet. (Emphasis supplied).
27. The reply of 2nd respondent in this behalf is that all the Examiners have done online valuation and the marks scored or comments are entered in Script Marks Report. This reply does not satisfy the requirement of evaluation of answer scripts. (See Aditya 10 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 Bandopadya's case MANU/SC/0932/2011: (2011) 8 SCC 497 (supra)).
28. xxx It is admitted that in the answer sheets produced in the batch of cases, the scanned answer scripts do not bear the evaluation marks/remarks of Examiners or the marks allotted by the Examiner to each question. It is not clear whether on account of oral instructions issued by 2nd respondent not to write on the scanned answer scripts, a few of the Examiners have not shown their evaluation. But an answer sheet with online correction i.e., remarks of Examiner with the available software is produced. The possibility of just filling up the Script Marks Report, even if done (this Court is not doubting the bona fides of Examiners), facility for verification, evaluation with compatible technology must be put in place or used by the Examiners. But the marks have been entered in Script Marks Report. Normally, the presumption is marks are allotted on evaluation. The primary evidence to discharge onus of evaluation is by relying on evaluated answers scripts, and not the data entered on a separate Script Marks Report.
xxxx
30. The online evaluation as illustrated above when is pointed out to the representative of service provider, the representative has fairly admitted that the scanned answer sheets produced in the batch of cases show no trace of evaluation by the Examiners. It is pertinent to remark that the utilization of available technology such as Abode, PDF format, Wacom, Stylus etc., would have certainly helped the University to achieve the objectives which it wanted to achieve by online evaluation. Use of available tools could have furnished complete, accurate and reliable Diagnostic Reports. At this juncture, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadyaya's case MANU/SC/0932/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 497 (supra) is taken note of. The clinical examination of a patient is the preferred option of Doctors. However, of late, more and more Diagnostic Reports are preferred for accuracy. The accomplishment of accuracy of a Diagnostic Report is possible with tools and technicians.
xxxx
33. Hence, the summary and conclusions are as follows:
"(a) the online evaluation of answer scripts for the examinations held in May/June, 2016 according to the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in para 2 of the counter-affidavit is in continuation of a pilot project introduced in October, 2015 and requires updating tools and skills of Examiners.
(b) The expertise and technical compatibility of Examiners at respective centres is a matter required to be re-examined by the University and compatibility is archived by undertaking demo classes.11
UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020
(c) Consistency in the evaluation i.e., writing remarks by the Examiner on the scanned/answer scripts could not be shown in the answer sheets. Hence, keeping in perspective the technology uniform written instructions to Examiners could be issued.
(d) The legitimate expectation of a student is that the answers written are at least looked at and appreciated for evaluation. In the case on hand, with the illustration given above, this Court is of the view that Script Answers Reports are treated as evaluation of answer scripts and no material is placed to satisfy that the evaluation of answer scripts, in fact, had taken place and Script Marks Report is the summary of such evaluation."(Emphasis supplied).
Thus, this Court on earlier occasion did not relish the similar argument made by the 2nd respondent contending that the use of digital tools is only optional but not mandatory. On the other hand, this court categorically observed that the utilization of the available technology such as Adobe, PDF, Wacom, Stylus etc., would have certainly helped the University to achieve the objectives which it wanted to achieve by online evaluation. More precisely, this Court observed that the use of available tools would have furnished complete, actual, reliable and diagnostic reports. This court thus categorically held that it is the legitimate expectation of the students that the answers written are atleast looked at and appreciated for evaluation and in the case on hand, the script answer reports are treated as evaluation of answer scripts and no material is placed to satisfy that the evaluation of answer scripts, infact, had taken place and script marks report is summary of such evaluation.
9. J. Kiran Kumar and others (2 supra) is also a similar case wherein this Court again observed thus.
12
UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020
23. In the earlier batch of cases i.e., Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case (supra), this Court was more concerned with the system of digital evaluation and the tools employed therein but did not examine the legal aspect of the matter. Though the usage of tools while evaluating the answer sheets was highlighted in the said judgment, the same is not followed while evaluating answer scripts even in this batch of cases. The marks were filled up in a separate marks sheet and that is the reason why when an opportunity was given to the candidates to verify their answer sheets, the digital sheets were not shown to them, but only manual scripts were shown. If the digital evaluation method is transparent, each answer script evaluated by the examiner by using the tools provided for it should be saved for future review in order to see whether the examiner has applied his mind while evaluating the answer scripts or not.(Emphasis supplied).
10. The above judgments were followed in subsequent cases i.e., W.P.Nos.10376 of 2019 and 1956 of 2020. It should be noted that against the orders of the Single Judge in W.P.Nos.10376 of 2019 and 9486 of 2019, the 2nd respondent preferred W.A.Nos.363 and 364 of 2019 and by a common judgment dt. 31.10.2019, a Division Bench of this High Court while upholding those judgments, dismissed the appeals.
11. Thus, the issue is no more res integra. As already observed supra, in the instant case also the examiners have not mentioned any marks or remarks on the script answer sheets but only mentioned the marks on a separate sheet. Thus, the presumption is that the examiners have not evaluated the answers by scrupulously following the earlier line of judgments on the same issue. Therefore, the contention of the 2nd respondent that usage of digital tools is only optional cannot be countenanced. The further contention of the 2nd respondent that the earlier cases relate to the digital evaluation of answer sheets of the PG course and the present case relates to Final 13 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020 year MBBS and hence those decisions have no application is preposterous for the reason that though the examinations are different, the methodology applied for evaluation in both the cases is the same i.e., digital evaluation. Therefore, the ratio in the earlier judgments squarely applies to the case on hand.
12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to get petitioner's answer scripts in 509A-ENT and 510A- Opthalmology subjects of MBBS Final Year Part-I held in the month of January/February, 2020 evaluated once again as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners. Such examiners shall mention their remarks as well as the marks awarded for each answer clearly on the uploaded answer scripts by using digital tools. The corrected answer sheets must be preserved for future review. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by 2nd respondent. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Dt:21.07.2020 MS 14 UDPR,J WP.No.8213 of 2020