S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) WRIT Petition Nos. 9063 and 9277 of 1992: petitioners in these two Writ Petitions appeared for the commom entrance test for admission to the first year of the various medical courses like M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. etc. , known as Engineering, Agricultural and Medical Common entrance Test (EAMCET) conducted for the academic year 1992-93 by the andhra University, Convener of which is the 1st respondent. The results of the said test were published in all the dailies on 13-7-1992. Petitioner in Writ petition No. 9063 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 1st petitioner ) secured 36 marks in Biology, 40 marks in Physics and 34 marks in Chemistry out of 50 in each of the said subject i. e. , a total of 110 marks out of 150 marks and her rank was shown as 918. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9277 of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd petitioner ) secured 35 marks in Biology, 41 in Physics and 36 in Chemistry i. e, a total of 112 marks out of 150 marks and her rank was shown as 734. The petitioners question the key answers to some of the questions in Biology and seek a direction to the respondents to produce their answer scripts and also the key answers provided by the 1st respondent to all the valuers for the purpose of evaluation of the answer scripts in Biology, and a declaration that providing key answers to the valuers without giving them the power to adjudicate the correct answers as illegal and arbitrary, and a direction to the respondents to get the answer scripts of the petitioners revalued afresh, and a direction to declare their results after such revaluation, and a direction to admit them in the first year M. B. B. S. course for the academic year 1992 -93,

( 2 ) THE petitioners state that as per the instruction booklet issued by the 1st respondent for EAMCET-92 for admission to Medical, Dental etc. , colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the question papers would be of objective type (multiple choice and fill up the blanks ). Model question paper in Biology, physics and Chemistry was also given as Annexure-II to the said booklet. Sub- clause (a) of Clause 10 of the said booklet deals with evaluation and states as follows:-" 10. (a): Evaluation : Every case will be taken in the valuattion, checking, scruntiny, tabulation and ranking. Hence request for retotalling or revaluation or personal identification of scripts will not be entertained. " sub-clause (b) of the said Clause 10 states inter alia that :"10 (b): Ranking: (i) Candidates appearing for Agricultural, Medical and pharmacy Courses (Bi. P. C. group) will be ranked in the order of merit. In case of a tie in aggregate, marks obtained in Biology, and in case of further tie, marks obtained in Physics will be taken into account to decide the relative ranking. In case of Candidates getting equal marks in each of the three subjects, they will be bracketted for the purpose of award of rank. At the time of admission, age will be taken into consideration for relative ranking between the bracketted candidates, the older candidate being given priority,"thus in case of tie in aggregate marks, the first tie breaker is the number of marks obtained in Biology and that is why the petitioners lay particular stress on the evaluation of the Biology paper.

( 3 ) THE petitioners state that the 1st respondent got prepared a statement of key answer to each of the questions in each of the papers and the valuer, though qualified to assess the correctness of the answer himself was allowed no option except to go by the key and award marks on the basis whether the candidate answered in accordance with the key. The petitioners contend that the said system of evaluation adopted is illegal and arbitrary. The 2nd petitioner further contends that neither the Government of Andhra Pradesh nor the Board of intermediate Education prescribed text books to be followed for Intermediate and that the respondents did not prescribe text books to be followed for eamcet-92 exa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document