Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of his answer scripts of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry subjects of 1st year MBBS exam held in April 2021.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for First Year MBBS supplementary examination held in April 2021. 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 announced by 2nd respondent University, the petitioner got failed in Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry subjects. Immediately he made an application dated 28.06.2021 under the RTI Act by paying requisite fee. The 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 28.07.2021 directing the petitioner to attend personally before 3rd respondent for verification of answer scripts on 07.08.2021. On personal verification, it was found that two evaluators corrected each answer script but marks were not awarded against each question.
It is submitted that in Anatomy Paper-I the petitioner was awarded 46/100 marks by 1st evaluator and was awarded 50/100 marks by 2nd evaluator, whereas in Anatomy Paper-II he was awarded 42.5 marks and 33 marks by respective examiners. In respect of Biochemistry Paper-I, he was awarded 48 and 50.5 marks, and in Paper-II he was awarded 50 and 33 marks by respective examiners. In respect of Physiology Paper-I, he was awarded 51 and 28 marks, whereas in Paper-II he awarded 43 and 64.5 marks by respective examiners. It is submitted that since difference is more than 20% it was evaluated by 3rd examiner, who was awarded 33 marks. It is contended that marks provided in the marks list were different from the marks noted by petitioner at the time of physical verification. It is further contended that the petitioner is in doubt that any mistake might have crept in while 2nd respondent university in digitally evaluating his answer scripts by the examiners because there is every likelihood of committing mistakes while decoding, scanning, uploading and downloading the answer scripts, which would have resulted in improper valuation of his answer sheets. 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 his 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.

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.