Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A Rasmi vs Dr. Ntr University Of Health Sciences, on 19 September, 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S SOMAYAJULU
Writ Petition No.9486 of 2019
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared along with the Registrar and Controller of Examination. The writ was heard along with a related W.P No.10376 of 2019. The Registrar of the University appeared (as per the orders in W.P No.10376 of 2019) along with the answer scripts. A detailed order was passed in that writ petition today.
2. The scanned answer sheet of this particular candidate is also produced. The Registrar in all earnestness submits that they have instructed the examiners to use all the requisite tools to correct the examinations sheet, but he agrees that in this case also the scanned answer sheets do not contain any marks to show the actual correction/evaluation. The representation of the petitioner's father dated 25.03.2019 clearly states that he has also noticed the absence of individual marks against the answers in the scanned copy. In similar circumstances, this Court directed re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The judgments reported in Dr.P. Kishore Kumar and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare (E1) Department and others1 and Dr.J Kiran Kumar and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare (E1) Department, Amaravathi and others2 squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Despite the apprehension and the doubt expressed by this Court and despite the efforts said to have been made by the University, the position still remains same. The scanned copies of the answer sheets did not 1 2016 (6) ALT 408 2 2017 (6) ALT 213 2 DVSS, J W.P No.10376 of 2019 contain any indication whatsoever to show that they have actually evaluated. The doubt and the apprehension, expressed by the petitioner appears to be true. The University is relying upon the Script Marks Report to come to a conclusion that the evaluation has been done as stipulated. Unfortunately, in the absence of any physical evidence on the scanned copies, this Court also cannot believe that that script has been actually evaluated. The doubts expressed by the learned Single Judges of this Court in the two reported judgments, still remain unanswered. Therefore, in this case, also the writ petition has to be allowed.
4. The respondent University is directed to get the marks sheet of the petitioner digitally evaluated once again. The University is directed to give strict instructions to the evaluators/examiners to put their marks on the copy which is sent to them in the electronic form. This would furnish evidence of the fact that the petitioner's answer book has actually been corrected/evaluated.
5. In view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to complete re-evaluation of the petitioner's answer script within a period of 6 weeks from today.
6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S SOMAYAJULU 19.09.2019 Rvk