Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of his answer scripts of Human Anatomy theory subject of 1st year MBBS exam held in April/May 2021 (Hall Ticket No.19M102023022).

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for First Year MBBS examination held in April/May 2021 with Hall Ticket No.19M102023022. 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 Human Anatomy theory subject where he was awarded 92 marks out of minimum required 100 marks. In Human Anatomy Paper-I he was awarded 37 marks out of minimum required 40 marks, and in Paper-II he was awarded 55 marks out of minimum required 40 marks. It is submitted that as per the new guidelines for the scheme of University examinations 2019-20 adopted by 2nd respondent University, in subjects that have two papers, the learner must secure 40% marks in each of the papers with minimum 50% of marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass. Immediately he approached the 2nd respondent University by submitting an application for re- totaling of the said subject and in the re-totaling also, there was no change in the result. It is submitted that the petitioner is in doubt that any mistake might have occurred while 2nd respondent university in digitally evaluating his answer scripts by the examiners for Human Anatomy theory subject because there is probability of omissions and commissions, which would have resulted in improper valuation of his answer sheets. On 30.06.2021, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University and submitted an application under the RTI Act for physical verification of his answer scripts. After verification on 06.08.2021, it was found that there were no marks or remarks to show that his answer script was evaluated. Though the 2nd respondent University has adapted digital evaluation, there were no signs of usage of the digital tools to show that his answer scripts were corrected or evaluated. The petitioner also noticed that there were no tick marks or remarks on the evaluated answer papers shown to him by 2nd respondent University. It is further contended that though the petitioner has written the examination well, but he was declared as "failed" in Human Anatomy theory subject with a thin margin of pass marks because of the improper evaluation done by 2nd respondent. 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.

Hence, the instant writ petition.

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

The petitioner has taken examination for MBBS First Year in April 2021 and the results were pronounced in June 2021 and he was declared as failed in one subject i.e., Human Anatomy. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-totaling and after re-totaling there was no change in the result and the same was placed in the University website on 27.07.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made an application dated 30.06.2021 under the RTI Act and requested for verification of his answer scripts and was permitted for personal verification of answer scripts on 06.08.2021. The petitioner attended for personal verification of his answer scripts on 06.08.2021. After verification, he acknowledged that his answer scripts were valued by the examiners, vide acknowledgement dated 06.08.2021. 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.