Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. Jagadeesh Jampani Ht No. 1661311 vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 March, 2020
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
WRIT PETITION No.1956 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2, in getting the petitioners' answer scripts digitally evaluated without complying with the earlier orders of this Court, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is sought to get the petitioners' answer scripts evaluated manually without any discrepancies in fool proof method.
Petitioners' are prosecuting Post Graduate Degree Training Programme in Katuri Medical College and other colleges affiliated to respondent No.2- NTR University of Health Sciences and appeared for final year examination conducted in November, 2019. Medical Council of India framed Indian Medical Council P.G. Medical Education Regulations 2000, according to which, a booklet containing 68 pages will be supplied to each student for writing answers in the examination. The answer scripts will be evaluated by 4 examiners independently. The marks awarded by all the 4 examiners will be clubbed and average marks would be taken, based on which, the results of the students would be announced. Previously, the answer scripts were evaluated by the examiners manually, but a few years back, respondent No.2 - NTR University of Health Sciences introduced 2 digitalized evaluation system, according to which, individual answer scripts of the students are being subjected to scanning and the scanned answer scripts are evaluated by 4 examiners. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have done well in the examinations which were conducted in April, 2019, but they were declared as failed, since lot of aberrations took place in the process of evaluation of answer scripts. Later they appeared for supplementary examinations in the month of October, 2019 and they were again declared as failed and on verification of answer scripts, they found no remarks/tick marks on the evaluated papers. Hence the writ petition.
Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating inter-alia that the University has sent letters to the concerned valuation centres of their college for giving proper training to their valuators with the help of technical staff of M/s Globarena Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, including using of tools for giving remarks; the examiners/evaluators were given proper training for using the tools, for giving remarks and that after satisfying the same, the digital valuation has been started; while evaluating the answer scripts digitally, tools like stylus marks, tick mark or 'x' marks, underling, comments etc., are available for giving remarks by the examiners and it is the discretion of the examiner to make use of the tools; there is no regulation for revaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners either in 3 MCI Regulations or University regulations and that in 'Sahiti & others vs. The Chancellor, Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences & others1', the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a direction to revaluate the answer sheets should not be given".
When the matter came up for admission, Sri G.Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for NTR University, was asked to produce scanned copies of the answer scripts. Today, when the matter is taken up, Dr.Bheemeswara Rao, Controller of Examinations, along with Sri Subba Rao, Technician, is present in Court and produced scanned copies of answer scripts. Dr. Bheemeswara Rao submitted that evaluators were given training before evaluating the answer scripts and all the necessary tools were also provided to them. When this Court verified the answer scripts, there is no proof at all to show that they were actually evaluated by the examiner and none of the answer scripts contain any mark to show that they were actually evaluated. Both the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the Controller of Examinations, who is present in Court, also admit the same. However, both of them would submit that it is the discretion of the examiners to use the techniques which are available to them while evaluating answer scripts and that they exercised their discretion not to use the said tools while correcting the answer sheets and they only entered the marks on the 'Script Marks Report'. The scanned copies of the answer scripts of 1 (2009) 1 SCC 599 4 the petitioners are taken on record, and made part of the record. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that W.A.No.363 of 2019 filed challenging the order in W.P.No.10376 of 2019 was dismissed on 24.10.2019 and, further, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is recorded as Dairy No.7309/2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, Dr. J. Kiran Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and the direction in W.P.No.10376 of 2019, dated 19.09.2019.
Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case (supra) was filed to declare the action of the respondents in digitally (online) evaluating the answer sheets of the petitioners. The petitioners therein were also students pursuing P.G. Medical Degree/Diploma Course. Even in the said case, Xerox copies of scanned and allegedly evaluated answer sheets were produced and after examining the answer sheets the Court came to a conclusion that "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". And in the said case, when the representative of the service provider stated that the software used enables making notation, remarks and award marks to a question, it was observed that the scanned answer scripts 2 2016(6) ALT 408 3 2017(6) ALT 213 5 do not bear the evaluation marks/remarks of examiners or the marks allotted by the examiner to each question. It was further observed that the primary evidence to discharge onus of evaluation is by relying on evaluated answer scripts, and not the data entered on a separate script marks report. In the said judgment it was observed that the power of judicial review is permitted to a limited extent and that online evaluation of answer scripts requires updating tools and skills of examiners and that 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 and that the legitimate expectation of a student is that the answers written are at least looked at and appreciated for evaluation. It was held that "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" and it was concluded that "therefore, a holistic view on the evaluation of answer scripts of petitioners is taken by the Vice Chancellor within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and answer scripts evaluated either manually or online, however, by taking all required steps, and thereafter declare the results".
6
In Dr. P.Kishore Kumar's case (supra), the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in President, Central Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar4, was referred to, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the scope for interference in matters of valuation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in valuation, the Court step in.
In Dr. J. Kiran Kumar's case (supra), the petitioners therein challenged the method of digital evaluation and denial of retotalling of the marks. The first contention of the petitioners therein was that the digital evaluation was not evolved in a foolproof manner in spite of the orders of this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case (supra). Even in the said case the answer sheets were directed to be produced and it is the contention of the petitioners therein that the answer scripts did not contain any signs of use of tools provided in the software and that after manual valuation of the answer scripts which was done pursuant to the orders of this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case, out of 43 candidates whose answer scripts were valued, 28 candidates passed and thus, there is deficiency in the digital valuation which came out in the manual valuation done after digital valuation. In the said judgment, this Court observed that "though the usage of tools while evaluating the answer sheets was highlighted in the said judgment, the same is not followed while evaluating 4 (2007) 1 SCC 603 7 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". In the said case, the second contention that was raised is that the system of evaluation adopted by the University is contrary to the regulations of the Medical Council of India and as this Court found that the method adopted by the University is contrary to the regulations it held that the valuation done to the answer scripts of the petitioners therein was invalid and allowed the Writ Petitions and this Court also directed the University to revalue the theory answer scripts of the petitioners therein and declare their results.
This Court in W.P.No.10376 of 2019, dated 19.09.2019, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case and Dr. J. Kiran Kumar's case, allowed the Writ petition and directed the respondents therein to once again evaluate the answer scripts. The petitioners therein were also a group of medical students and they filed the Writ Petition to declare the action of the respondents therein in not getting the answer scripts digitally evaluated as per the earlier orders of this Court as illegal and arbitrary and even in the said case the answer scripts were produced and they did not contain any marks to show that they have been actually evaluated and in those circumstances it was 8 observed that, despite the said two judgments the examiners have not followed the instructions given by the University and the Court.
Despite the training and utilization of available technology, it is clear that the examiners have not utilized the tools and there are no stylus marks on the answer sheets and have not awarded marks on the answer scripts for each question. Even though a specific direction has been given in Kishore Kumar's case (supra), observing that "online evaluation of answer scripts requires updating tools and skills of examiners and that 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", there is not much improvement in the evaluation of the answers scripts. It was categorically held in Kishore Kumar's case (supra) that "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, 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".
Learned standing counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahiti's case (supra), submits 9 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any rules providing for revaluation, no direction can be issued for revaluation. The facts in the above case do not apply to the facts of the case on hand. In this case the answer sheets do not show signs of valuation.
This Court does not find fault with the University as the Controller of Examinations has submitted that they provided the examiners with all the necessary tools. Even though, discretion is there to the examiners to use tools provided to them, none of the answer scripts contain any stylus marks i.e. tick marks/remarks. The Controller of Examinations and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University fairly admitted that the scanned answer sheets produced show no trace of evaluation by the examiners. When the examiners have not utilized the tools and have not made any mark on the answer script, this Court, in earlier judgments, directed to once again evaluate the answer scripts as per prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners and directed to give clear and categorical instructions to the new set of examiners to physically put the marks viz. stylus mark, tick mark etc. on the uploaded answer script and the corrected sheet was directed to be preserved for future review and the entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondent No.2 to digitally evaluate the answer 10 scripts as per prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh examiners; respondent No.2 - University shall give clear and categorical instructions to the new set of examiners to physically put the marks viz. stylus mark, tick mark etc. on the uploaded answer script and the corrected sheet shall be preserved for future review. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.
Date:03.03.2020 Note:
Issue CC in three days B/o usd/Nsr