Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme of examination, a booklet containing 64 pages will be supplied to each student for writing the answers. Earlier, double valuation system was introduced by the 2nd respondent university while evaluating the answer scripts as per which the 1st examiner has to evaluate the answer script and award the marks which is confidential. The said answer scripts have to be sent to the 2nd examiner and after awarding the marks by the 2nd examiner, aggregate will be taken into consideration for awarding the marks in the said subjects and the results will be declared. While so, few years back, the 2nd respondent introduced the digitalized evaluation system as per which the individual answer scripts of the students will be scanned and such scanned answer scripts would be evaluated by two examiners one after the other.

He relied on the decision in Dr.Kishore Kumar v. State of A.P [(2016)6 ALT 408] wherein this Court held that when the digital answer scripts are evaluated, stylus marks, tick marks, etc., evidencing the application of mind and award of marks have to be put on the digital papers and the scanned answer scripts should be made available for verification. The above process has to be done as per the directions of this Court in the cited case. The said process is held to be transparent process and would eliminate the vagaries of the examiners. The students, who come up to the level of Medical Education have to put lot of efforts and in determining their abilities a fool proof mechanism has to be adopted and the answer scripts cannot be evaluated in slip short manner. The physical remarks made in the answer scripts are reflection of award of marks on the answer scripts, which is sine-qua-non. The respondents 2 & 3 adopted a different procedure in a whimsical fashion, which is ex facie illegal.

Learned standing counsel, while reiterating the averments made in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, submitted that the petitioner appeared for the I year MBBS examinations for the second time in May/June, 2022 and in the results pronounced, she was declared as failed in one subject i.e., Human Anatomy. In the month of March, 2022 vide University letter No.1102/E1C/MBBS/Exams/2022-1, dated 31.03.2022, it was clearly specified that the University has implemented the digital valuation of the answer scripts from July/August, 2017 examinations and each and every student is very much aware about digital valuation of answer scripts. The university has taken a decision for introduction of double evaluation system in the year 2011 through University resolution. In the double evaluation system each paper of the subject shall be valued by two examiners independently and the average of the marks shall be taken into consideration for final marks of that paper. If there is variation of 20% or above of the 1st and 2nd valuations, the answer script shall be referred to 3rd valuation and the script will be valued by a new examiner. The above exercise increases the accuracy in the valuation system and transparency. The respondent university has given instructions to the principals of all UG/PG medical colleges and requested them to supervise the process of valuation and make necessary arrangements to establish the digital evaluation centers. As per the resolution of the executive council dated 21.06.2016 the university introduced the valuation of the answer scripts only on digital mode but not manual, and the same was again resolved to continue the existing digital valuation process in its meeting held on 31.03..2022. The University has given clear instructions to the service provider regarding upgradation of tools used by the examiners while evaluation and also the examiners were instructed for usage of the tools. As per the decisions of this Court, University reviewed the process of digital valuation and the software adopted for that purpose in the meeting of executive council held on 31.03.2022 and resolved to use latest software for digital valuation. Accordingly, before commencement of process of digital valuation, a zoom meeting was conducted on 19.05.2022 with regard to upgradation of the software regarding incorporation of annotations to be used while valuation of answer scripts with all the Principals, camp officers and faculty of the medical colleges. In the said meeting several instructions have been issued regarding usage of annotations like tick mark (), cross mark [X], lines like underline/slanting line [/,__,\] to mark on the answer script. Examiners shall put the marks on each page of the answer scripts question wise. Examiners shall highlight the particular portion of the answer by using the above tools by underlining the text.

The 2nd respondent authorities produced the answer sheets of the petitioner for the subject of Human Anatomy, for verification, on 28.06.2022. The petitioner/student appeared in person and was allowed to verify the answer script, in the presence of both the counsel and the authorities. The authorities produced the answer script of the I & II paper in each subject. The petitioner was allowed to verify each paper as to whether the examiner evaluated the answer script each page by using the tools by putting annotations like tick () mark, 'X' mark, slanting lines, underlining while awarding marks to each question. Sufficient time was given to the petitioner without any hurry. This Court also verified the answer script of each paper. The student except raising the discrepancy in award of the marks by the 1st and 2nd examiner stating that one of the examiner awarded more marks to the same question whereas the other examiner awarded less marks, could not point out any violation of the regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of answer scripts. The awarding of marks is the pure discretion of the examiner/evaluator. The same cannot be found fault with. The authorities answered other doubts raised by the petitioner with regard to putting of tick () mark, 'X' mark and awarding of marks to each question at the end to the satisfaction of the Court and petitioner. This Court found that the examiners valuated the answer script of the petitioner correctly by using digital tools as per procedure and as per the guidelines prescribed by this Court in the case of Dr.P.Kishore Kumar (supra). The examiners evaluated the answer script of the petitioner with utmost care and caution without any deviation from the prescribed procedure as per digital scheme valuation and guidelines issued by this court in the case of Dr. J. Kiran Kumar (supra). Further, in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.12418 of 2021, this Court having found on perusal of the answer script that they do not contain the marks like (), 'X', underlines or any other digital remarks and even the marks granted to each question were also not mentioned in the answer sheets, held that the decision in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar (supra) applies on all fours to the said case, allowed the said writ petition and directed the 2nd respondent to get the answer scripts of the petitioners therein evaluated once again as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying two fresh examiners for each answer script. In the case on hand, lapses pointed out in the earlier decision of this Court, have not occurred, to grant similar relief to the petitioner. This Court is aware of the decision of the Apex Court. It is settled legal principle that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in the academic matters, unless the action of the University suffers from arbitrariness, writ large on the face of its decision. Hence, this Court found that there are no merits in the writ petition and no relief could be granted to the petitioner.