Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Divya Gulati - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9853 of 2020
Decided On : 21-07-2020
MEDICAL EDUCATION - MBBS - FINAL YEAR - SURGERY (THEORY) EXAMINATION - DIGITAL EVALUATION - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT GUIDELINES - RE-EVALUATION ORDERED - [DR. P. KISHORE KUMAR AND DR. J. KIRAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (2016) 6 ALT 408, DR. P. KISHORE KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (2016) 6 ALT 408, J. KIRAN KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS, (2017) 6 ALT 213, W.P.NOS.10376 OF 2019 AND 1956 OF 2020, W.P.NOS.9486 OF 2019 AND 10376 OF 2019, W.A.NOS.363 AND 364 OF 2019, ADITYA BANDOPADYAS CASE, (2011) 8 SCC 497]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Hyderabad, challenged the evaluation of her Final Year MBBS Part-II examination in the subject of Surgery (Theory) conducted by the 2nd respondent. She alleged that the digital evaluation process was flawed and that her answer sheets were not properly evaluated, resulting in her failure in the subject.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the examiners had not mentioned any marks or remarks on the script answer sheets but only mentioned the marks on a separate sheet. The court held that this was in violation of the earlier line of judgments on the same issue, which required the examiners to use digital tools to mark and comment on the answer sheets.
Issues: Whether the examiners had scrupulously followed the guidelines of the University and the observations made in the earlier decisions in the process of evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the use of digital tools for evaluation was mandatory and not optional, and that the examiners were required to mention their remarks and the marks awarded for each answer clearly on the uploaded answer scripts. The court also held that the earlier judgments on the digital evaluation of answer sheets of PG courses were applicable to the present case, as the methodology applied for evaluation was the same.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the 2nd respondent to get the petitioner's answer scripts in Surgery (Theory) subject re-evaluated by four fresh examiners, who were required to use digital tools to mark and comment on the answer sheets. The court also directed that the corrected answer sheets be preserved for future review.
JUDGMENT
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The writ petitioner, who prosecutes her MBBS in Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Hyderabad, filed the instant writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in evaluating her Final Year MBBS Part-II examination in the subject of Surgery (Theory) held in January/February, 2020 without following the earlier orders of this High Court and declaring the result as 'failed' in the subject of Surgery (Theory + Oral) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to get her answer scripts in the subject of Surgery (Theory) of Final Year Part-II re-evaluated by strictly following the directions given by this court in earlier judgments.
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner appeared for Final MBBS Part-II examination (Hall Ticket No.15079027) conducted by the 2nd respondent in the month of January/February, 2020. The results were announced and she came to know that she was failed in one subject Surgery (Theory + Oral) wherein she secured 64 marks out of the minimum required 70 marks. She immediately approached the 2nd respondent University and applied for re-totalling of the said subject in March, 2020. On 30.05.2020 on verifying the official website of the 2nd respondent University, she found her status after re-totalling as 'No Change'. The petitioner claims that she is a brilliant student and in all the academic years she secured good marks and there was no reason that she should fail in the final year. She suspects that mistakes might have crept in while digitally evaluating her answer sheet in the subject i.e., Surgery (Theory). She narrated certain instances of how mistakes might have taken place. It is stated that as per the University norms, answer sheets are evaluated digitally. The service provider is authorized to decode, scan and upload the answer sheets on the computer to transfer them to the respective examiners for correction. In the process, if the server was down all the answer sheets might not have been uploaded correctly and some of them might be missing. The service provider does not take meticulous care to see whether all the papers have been uploaded or not.
(a) The next apprehension of the petitioner is that while digitally evaluating the answer sheets, the examiners did not use the evaluation tools properly. On 05.06.2020, the petitioner approached the Registrar of the University and submitted a representation for manual evaluation, but no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner strongly suspects about the method of evaluation adopted by the 2nd respondent University. In similar instances, in W.P.Nos.9486 of 2019 and 10376 of 2019, this court relying upon the earlier judgments in the case of Dr. P. Kishore Kumar and Dr. J. Kiran Kumar, allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents therein to once again evaluate the answer scripts. In those cases on noticing that the answer sheets which were produced before the court did not contain the evaluation marks, the court observed that except entering marks in the sheet appended on the top of answer sheets there was no trace of evaluation of answer sheets. The petitioner claims that her case also falls within the same parameters.
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. In fact, the University has resolved to introduce double evaluation system in the year 2011. Under this system, each paper of the subject shall be valued by two examiners
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
