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 1st year BDS course examinations held in April, 2021.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for 1st year BDS examinations held in April 2021. The examination was conducted by 2nd respondent University. However, in the results declared it was shown as he passed in one subject and failed in two subjects. It is contended that though the petitioner written the examination very well he was declared as "failed" with a thinner margin of one mark. The petitioner apprehends that there was a gross irregularity in the evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. The petitioner made an application on 16.06.2021 under the RTI Act to show the answer scripts evaluated by the examiners and also to furnish copies of the same. Pursuant to the communication of 2nd respondent, the petitioner verified her answer scripts and found that lot of aberrations took place in the process of evaluation of the answer scripts. However, there was a large scale violation of the regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of answer scripts. 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.

4. Heard Sri Seepani S.Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.

5. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the answer sheets of the petitioner were not at all evaluated by the examiners which is writ large from the fact that in spite of the 2nd respondent/University providing them technical tools for evaluation like stylus marks, tick marks, 'X' marks and providing training through M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad in digital evaluation of the answer sheets, no such marks or comments were mentioned on the answer sheet by the concerned examiners. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that expect mentioning the marks in a separate 'Script Marks Report', the examiners have not mentioned any relevant comments or put tick marks on the digital answer scripts. Therefore, the answer sheets were not evaluated at all. He relied upon the decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2016 (6) ALT 408] wherein this Court deprecated the action of the examiners in not placing any remarks on the digital answer sheets relating to PG Medical examination and observed that it would amount to non-evaluation and directed the 2nd respondent/University to re-evaluate the answer sheets. Learned counsel sought for similar order in this case.

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.