Back
AP Court Orders Grace Mark for Repeated MBBS Exam Questions
In a significant ruling aimed at upholding academic fairness, the has directed to award one compensatory mark to a medical student whose final MBBS examination was marred by a technical error.
The case, , highlights the judiciary's role in correcting procedural failures that disadvantage students during critical examinations.
The Case Background: A Technical Glitch The petitioner, a final-year MBBS student at , encountered a serious technical error during her Part-II Ophthalmology examination conducted on . Within the 'Set-C' question paper, Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) No. 5 was inaccurately reproduced verbatim as MCQ No. 7. Consequently, the student was effectively assessed on only 19 distinct questions instead of the full 20 provided to other sets.
Failing to reach the 40% qualifying threshold by a fractional margin of 0.61%, the petitioner argued that the repetition of the question deprived her of a fair opportunity to demonstrate her knowledge. Despite the University’s claim that she failed to challenge the preliminary key through the established online portal, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a for the award of one grace mark.
Arguments from Both Sides * The Petitioner: Counsel argued that the repetition of the question effectively forced the candidate to answer the same question twice, depriving her of an opportunity to face a unique question that could have bridged the gap to the qualifying percentage. * The University: Represented by Standing Counsel , the institution contended that the petitioner had ample opportunity to raise objections during the preliminary key notification window and that a direct petition to the court for a grace mark was untenable.
Judicial Reasoning: Fairness Over Formality Justice Kiranmayee Mandava, in a reasoned judgment, distinguished between competitive entrance examinations—where grace marks could unfairly distort —and regular qualifying degree examinations. The Court held that in a qualifying exam, the objective is to assess whether a student has attained the requisite standard, not to rank them against peers.
"The lapses on the part of the respondents confers advantage to the one set of candidates and causes corresponding disadvantage to another set of candidates,"
Justice Mandava observed. The Court emphasized that a student cannot be penalized for a procedural failure on the part of the examining body.
Key Observations The High Court’s ruling included several pivotal observations regarding the necessity of institutional responsibility:
-
On Compensatory Fairness:
"To ensure fairness, the candidate who has been declared unsuccessful should also be awarded one compensatory mark on account of the repeated question, if that one mark makes all the difference in passing in the examination."
-
On Institutional Responsibility:
"This Court is of the view that on account of the procedural lapses on the part of the respondents in repeating the questions, they cannot shirk or evade their responsibility."
-
On the Student's Plight:
"The petitioner had lost two marks, one for his mistake and another for no mistake on his part. Therefore, he cannot be put to a disadvantageous position for no fault on his part."
Decision and Implications The Court ordered the University to award the additional mark, effectively declaring the petitioner as having passed the Ophthalmology subject. Furthermore, the Principal of was directed to facilitate the student's entry into the Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI), honoring her academic progression.
This judgment serves as a vital for students, reinforcing that if a university’s creates an insurmountable hurdle for a candidate, the court will intervene to ensure that individual academic outcomes are decided on merit rather than clerical errors. This ruling offers a much-needed shield for students against systemic failures in academic assessment.
