Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Badugu Prem Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 November, 2021
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.23712 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of his answer scripts of Final Year Part-I MBBS course exams held in August 2021.
2. Today on the direction of this Court, the Controller of Examinations and Technicians, who are conversant with the digital evaluation of the answer scripts, appeared in person before this Court along with Memorandum of marks.
3. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel for 2 nd respondent.
4. The main plank of the 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 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. He relied upon 2 the decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2016 (6) ALT 408] wherein this Court deprecated the action of the examiners in not placing any remarks on the digital answer sheets relating to PG Medical examination and observed that it would amount to non-evaluation and directed the 2nd respondent/University to re-evaluate the answer sheets. Learned counsel sought for similar order in this case.
5. In oppugnation, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent would argue 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 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'. Learned counsel, however, fairly admitted that in 3 the re-evaluation sheet also there were no evaluation symbols. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. 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?
7. On perusal of the answer script, 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. It is no doubt that the Standing Counsel would argue 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. However, this argument does not hold water in view of the earlier decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar's case (1 supra), wherein it was observed thus:
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 Bandopadya's case MANU/SC/0932/2011: (2011) 8 SCC 497 (supra)).4
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.
(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 5 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).
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, in fact, had taken place and script marks report is summary of such evaluation.
8. Needlesss to emphasize the above judgment applies with all fours to the case on hand and as in the instant case also the evaluation was done without following the due procedure. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and 2nd respondent is directed to get the petitioner's answer scripts of Final Year Part-I MBBS course exams held in August 2021 evaluated once again as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying two (2) 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. 6 The corrected answer sheets must be preserved for future review. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by 2 nd respondent. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 15.11.2021 MVA