Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of her answer scripts of Final BDS course examinations held in February, 2021.

2. The petitioner' case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for final BDS examinations held in February 2021, and got failed in two subjects i.e., Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics and she was declared as failed in theory and obtained marks 49/50 in Conservative Dentistry subject and 49/50 in Prosthodontics, with a margin of one mark to get pass in said subjects. Later she applied for re-totaling of the said subjects to 2nd respondent University, and after re-totaling there was no change of marks awarded by the examiners. The respondent University did not permit the petitioner for personal verification of total marks in said re- totaling. It is submitted that evaluation of her answer scripts by digital method was not properly done by 2nd respondent University. The respondents 2 & 3 have adopted a different procedure in a whimsical fashion which is ex facie illegal. 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 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 G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, 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 sheets 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.