Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition is filed 'to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in conducting the digital evaluation process contrary to the principles laid down in 'Dr. P.Kishore Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1'and 'Dr. J.Kiran Kumar & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh'2 in respect of Post-graduate course examinations held in the month of August, 2020 and in not furnishing copies of the answer scripts, as illegal and arbitrary.'

2. Case of the petitioners is that, they are prosecuting Post graduate degree and diploma training programme, in the colleges affiliated to the 2nd respondent-University; they have appeared for final year examinations conducted in the month of August, 2020 i.e., 1st petitioner appeared for Diploma Anesthesiology, vide HT No.18M202013003, 2nd petitioner appeared for MS Orthopedics, vide HT No.17M312007001; 3rd petitioner appeared for MS Orthopedics, vide HT No.17M312007004; 4th petitioner appeared for MD Pathology, vide HT No.17M319007001; 5th petitioner appeared for MS General Surgery, vide HT No.17M311013008 and 6th petitioner appeared for MS Ophthalmology, vide HT No.1302357; as per the scheme of examination, a booklet containing 64 pages will be supplied to each student and the answer scripts will be evaluated by four examiners independently and the marks awarded by the four examiners will be clubbed and average marks will be taken and basing on the same, the results of the students will be declared; but few years back, the 2nd respondent-University introduced 2016(6) ALT 408 2017(6) ALT 213 KVL, J the digitalized evaluation system, as per which the individual answer scripts of the students are being subjected to scanning and such scanned answer scripts are being evaluated by four examiners serially one after the other; in respect of post-graduate medical examinations, the examination in the concerned subjects comprise of 4 papers of 100 marks each; of the said marks, a minimum of 40 marks shall be obtained to a minimum aggregate of 200 marks; though they have written the examination well they were declared failed; lot of aberrations took place in the process of evaluation of answer scripts; petitioners have a legitimate doubt about the method of evaluation; petitioners made an application under RTI to show the answer scripts evaluated by the examiners and also to furnish copies of the answer scripts but so far, the 2nd respondent-University did not choose to furnish the same; as per the scheme of evaluation, the answer scripts have to be scanned and sent to four examiners for digital evaluation; the imperfection in the process of digital valuation by the agency in respect of post graduate students was pointed out by this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case (supra) and the non compliance of the said direction in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar's case was pointed out in Dr.J. Kiran Kumar's case (supra); in Dr. Kishore Kumar's case (supra), it was held that when the digital answer scripts were evaluated, stylus marks, tick marks etc. evidencing the application of the mind and award of marks have to be put on the digital paper. This Court in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar's case (supra) pointed out that entering marks in the 'script marks report' is not sufficient and scanned answer sheets should show the evidence of evaluation; questioning the said evaluation, present writ petition is filed.

11. 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 observed that, despite the said two judgments the examiners have not followed the instructions given by the University and the Court.

13. Learned standing counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahiti's case (supra), submits 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 said judgment may not apply to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner's case is that their papers were not evaluated at all as no marks/remarks are found on the answer sheets. It is an admitted case of the respondents that while evaluating the answer scripts, digital tools like stylus marks, tick marks or 'x' marks, underling, comments etc. are not used at all and there are no traces of evaluation on the papers and KVL, J marks are not awarded to each answer in the answer sheet. It was observed as follows in the said judgment:

"In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed directing respondent No.2 to digitally evaluate the answer scripts as per prevalent MCI norms by identifying four fresh KVL, J 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."