Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Digital evaluation of answer scripts in Uha Sree Mukku vs Dr. Ntr University Of Health Sciences on 8 September, 2021Matching Fragments
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of her answer scripts of Physiology paper of 1st year MBBS exam held in April/May 2021 (Hall Ticket No.19M102012105).
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
The petitioner appeared for First Year MBBS supplementary examination held in April/May 2021 with Hall Ticket No.19M102012105. The examination was conducted by 1st respondent University. In the results declared by the University, the petitioner was failed in Physiology paper and in that paper she was awarded 45 marks in Paper-I, 44 marks in Paper-II and 69 marks in practical. She was also awarded 36 marks in Internal Assessment in relation to Physiology subject. However, she passed in other subject i.e., Biochemistry. It is submitted that though the petitioner has written Physiology paper very well, but she was declared as failed. Later she applied for recounting and she also obtained information under the RTI Act for inspection of her answer scripts. The 1st respondent has issued a letter dated 28.07.2021 permitting the petitioner to verify the answer scripts of Physiology on 07.08.2021. On inspection of the same, it was found that the answer scripts did not contain marks like (√) and (X) and no underlines or other digital remarks were found. On enquiry, the petitioner was told that the marks were entered in a separate sheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner, along with others, earlier filed W.P.No.13840 of 2021 before this Court seeking permission for attending the 2nd year classes, but this Court dismissed the application in the said writ petition by order dated 04.08.2021. It is further stated that the petitioner had verified the Physiology paper on 05.08.2021. However, there was a large scale violation of the regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of answer scripts. 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 her 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 C.Raghu, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel for 1st 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 1st 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 1st respondent/University to re-evaluate the answer sheets. Learned counsel sought for similar order in this case.
6. In oppugnation, learned Standing Counsel for 1st 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.