Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of her answer scripts of Theory paper i.e., 1117 - Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for final BPT examination held in December 2020 (Hall Ticket No.16181043). The examination was conducted by 2nd respondent University. However, there was a large scale violation of the regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of answer scripts. In the results declared by the University, the petitioner was failed in one subject i.e., 1117- Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health and she secured 24 marks in the above subject. However, she secured good marks in Practical and in internals of the above subject. The petitioner is in suspicion that mistakes might occur while evaluating her subject theory paper because there were probable commissions and omissions which would have resulted in improper valuation of her answer sheets, where the service provider was authorized to decode, scan and upload answer sheets on the computer to transfer the answer sheets to the respective examiners for correction. The petitioner applied for re-totaling. The petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on 22.01.2021 for personal verification of her paper and 2nd respondent sent the reply letter dated 15.02.2021 permitting the petitioner for personal verification of the subject theory answer script on 23.02.2021. She appeared on the said date and verified her answer scripts and there was no evaluation of the answer script except marks awarded on Script Marks Report. The petitioner apprehends that there was a gross irregularity in the evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. The petitioner came to know that the students of her ilk have filed batch of writ petitions and they were allowed and High Court of A.P. passed orders for re-

evaluation in terms of the guidelines issued for digital evaluation of the answer scripts.

Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus:

The petitioner has taken for IV BPT examination held in December 2020 for Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health and in the results were pronounced she was declared as failed in one subject i.e., Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-totaling and after re-totaling there was no change in the result. The petitioner has applied for personal verification of her subject answer script under the RTI Act and the University vide letter dated 15.02.2021 permitted for the same on 23.02.2021 and she was satisfied with the same. The marks were evaluated as per the MCI norms and guidelines. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. 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 would further admit that in this case retotalling was done at the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel, however, fairly admitted that in the re-evaluation sheet also there were no evaluation symbols. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition, since the petitioner failed after the re-evaluation also.

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 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.