Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is the case of the petitioners that the digital evaluation is not evolved in a foolproof manner in spite of the orders of this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and in W.P.No.7119 of 2017 and batch dated 04.04.2017. It is their further case that at the time of issuing notification or at the time of issuing Hall tickets they were not put on notice with regard to digital evaluation of their answer scripts and since the said system is not foolproof their failure was the result of such system of evaluation.

In view of the above stand and in view of the grievance of the petitioners, this Court asked the Controller of Examinations who was present in the Court along with service provider and he explained the method of digital evaluation of answer sheets. Pending further decision on digital evaluation, this Court permitted the petitioners to verify answer scripts by orders dated 14.09.2017 and 04.10.2017.

Two additional counter affidavits were filed on the directions of this Court, but since those two additional counter affidavits also did not give proper answers to the queries raised by this Court, the Controller of Examinations was directed to be present at the time of final hearing of the matters and accordingly he was present. The additional counter affidavits disclose that 1834 students appeared for the PG Degree examinations and out of them 1555 students passed and 269 students failed in theory, whereas in PG Diploma Course 418 students appeared and out of them 376 students passed and 35 candidates failed in theory. It is also stated that after scanning all the answer scripts by the service provider the same were sent to 28 valuation centers allotted by the University. The University has appointed two external examiners from outside the University/other State and two internal examiners as per Regulation 14 of the Medical Council of India Regulations. The first valuation was done by one external examiner and second valuation by one internal examiner appointed by the University in each centre. In the presence of the service provider, the examiners would decode their login password and enter their own password and open the scanned answer scripts before starting valuation. After completion of valuation of each answer, the first valuator puts marks of each answer in a separate page by using tool of the system, but the said marks sheet is not attached to the original answer scripts and after completion of first valuation by the first valuator the scanned answer scripts would be sent to the second valuator and he would follow the same system. The second valuation system was introduced by the University in the year 2011 by notification dated 08.06.2011 pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Council dated 28.05.2011. If there is variation of marks of 20% or more in the first and second valuation, the same would be referred to the third valuation to be done by the third valuator appointed by the University. During third valuation also the same procedure would be followed. The examiners are qualified and experienced Professors/Associate Professors who worked in their respective Colleges run either by Government or Private Management. While valuing the answer scripts absolute secrecy would be maintained, as the examiner does not know the details of the candidate whose paper he is valuing. It is also stated that except on factual aspects no legal ground was raised by the petitioners for entertaining the Writ Petitions and this Court earlier upheld the practise of digital valuation and appreciated the valuation through online, but it is suggested to rectify the defects. It is also stated that the external examiners have the knowledge of valuation on digital basis already as their respective Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu, State of Karnataka, State of Kerala and State of Maharashtra introduced the digital valuation method.

In the earlier batch of cases i.e., Dr. P. Kishore Kumars case (supra), this Court was more concerned with the system of digital evaluation and the tools employed therein but did not examine the legal aspect of the matter. Though the usage of tools while evaluating the answer sheets was highlighted in the said judgment, the same is not followed while evaluating answer scripts even in this batch of cases. The marks were filled up in a separate marks sheet and that is the reason why when an opportunity was given to the candidates to verify their answer sheets, the digital sheets were not shown to them, but only manual scripts were shown. If the digital evaluation method is transparent, each answer script evaluated by the examiner by using the tools provided for it should be saved for future review in order to see whether the examiner has applied his mind while evaluating the answer scripts or not.