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 Pharmacology and Pathology subject of MBBS 2nd year exam held in March/April 2021 (Hall Ticket No.18M101007039).

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for second year MBBS examination held in March/April 2021 with Hall Ticket No.18M101007039. 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 three subjects i.e., Pharmacology, Microbiology and Pathology. She was awarded 45/48 minimum required marks, 44/48 marks and 46/48 marks in Pharmacology, Microbiology and Pathology subjects respectively. Immediately she approached the 2nd respondent University by submitting an application for re-totaling of the said subjects and in the re-totaling also, there was no change in the result. It is contended that the petitioner is in doubt that any mistake might have occurred while 2nd respondent university in digitally evaluating her answer scripts by the examiners, because there is probability of omissions and commissions which would have resulted in improper valuation of her answer sheets. It is further contended that though the petitioner failed in three subjects, she filed this writ petition in respect of evaluation of Pharmacology and Pathology subjects only. On 09.06.2021, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University and submitted an application under the RTI Act to permit her for physical verification of her answer scripts. After personal verification on 30.06.2021, it was found that there were no tick marks or remarks to show that her 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 her answer scripts were corrected or evaluated. The petitioner made a representation dated 01.07.2021 to 2nd respondent University to re-evaluate her answer scripts, which is pending consideration. It is further contended that though the petitioner has written the examination well, but she was declared as "failed" in Pharmacology and Pathology subjects with a thinner margin of pass marks. 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 J.Krishna Praneeth, learned counsel for petitioner, 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 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.