Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material averments and inter alia contending thus.

(a) The petitioner appeared for Final Year MBBS Part-II examination in the month of January/February, 2020. The University in the month of November, 2019 vide its letter No.1111/E1/MBBS/Exams/2019/1 resolved to implement the digital evaluation of answer scripts from July/August, 2017 examinations onwards.

(b) The petitioner failed in the subject of General Surgery.

UDPR,J

(c) While so, the University introduced digital evaluation (Online evaluation) of the answer scripts of the PG Degree/Diploma examinations held in the month of May/June, 2016. Initially the Pilot Project was entrusted to M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad which has scanned answer scripts for online evaluation during October, 2015 PG examinations and the same were evaluated by the online examiners. The Professors who valued the answer scripts expressed their satisfaction of digital evaluation and opined that digital evaluation is beneficial when compared to OMR filling and also that it is a time saving process.

6. In oppugnition, the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent argued 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'. In this case, the re-totalling done at the request of the UDPR,J petitioner indicated that the petitioner secured only 64 marks which indicates she failed in the examination. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

9. J. Kiran Kumar and others (2 supra) is also a similar case wherein this Court again observed thus.

23. In the earlier batch of cases i.e., Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case (supra), this Court was more concerned with the system of digital evaluation and the tools employed therein but did not examine the legal aspect of the matter. Though the usage of tools while evaluating the answer sheets was highlighted in the said judgment, the same is not followed while evaluating answer scripts even in this batch of cases. The marks were filled up in a separate marks sheet and that is the reason why when an opportunity was given to the candidates to verify their answer sheets, the digital sheets were not shown to them, but only manual scripts were shown. If the digital evaluation method is transparent, each answer script evaluated by the examiner by using the tools provided for it should be saved for future review in order to see whether the examiner has applied his mind while evaluating the answer scripts or not.(Emphasis supplied).