Point of law: Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found necessary. There may be several instances wherein re evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed ‘to declare the action of the 1st respondent in evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioner through evaluation process for the examinations conducted for the MS orthopedic held in October/November 2019 and declaring the result, as illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction to the 1st respondent for evaluation of the answer scripts manually.’

2. Case of the petitioner is that, he is a student of MS Orthopedics in the 2nd respondent-college for 2016-19 batch; he appeared for MS Orthopedic exam held in October/November, 2019 which consists of four theoretical papers, practical/clinical and viva; he secured 334 marks out of 700, but the minimum pass marks is 350; petitioner has a legitimate doubt about the method of evaluation; the imperfection in the process of digital valuation by the agency in respect of post graduate students was pointed out by this Court in ‘Dr. P. Kishore Kumar & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2016 (6) ALT 408’ and the non compliance of the said direction in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar’s case was pointed out in ‘Dr.J. Kiran Kumar & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 (6) ALT 213’ and questioning the said evaluation, present writ petition is filed.

3. Counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent stating inter-alia that the University has introduced digital valuation (online valuation) of the answer scripts of PG Degree/Diploma Examinations from May/June, 2016 as Pilot Project/Work. The said work was entrusted to M/s Globarena Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad; after the judgment in WP No.26929 of 2016 dated 13.10.2016, the University has taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by this Court and improved the system of digital valuation; there is no regulation for revaluation of the answer scripts either in the MCI Regulations or the University regulations; this Court allowed two writ petitions i.e., WP No.10376 and 9846 of 2016 directing the University to revaluate the answers; WA Nos.363 and 364 of 2019 were filed challenging the said orders and both the writ appeals were dismissed; aggrieved by the same, Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Apex Court and it is in the stage of Dairy no. due to Covid-19.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 14.10.2020, the Controller of Examination of the University was asked to be present in the Court along with the scanned copies of answer sheets of the petitioner and the petitioner was permitted to verify the evaluated answer sheets personally and according to the said direction, they were produced on 16.10.2020 and the petitioner and his counsel have verified the same and the petitioner was asked to file an affidavit with regard to the same.

5. Additional counter-affidavit is also filed by the 1st respondent stating inter-alia that the petitioner again appeared for regular examinations held from 08.08.2020 to 14.08.2020, and that he failed in the said examination and as he failed in the regular examination question of revaluation of previous examination paper does not arise. Learned standing counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sahiti & others vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & others, AIR 2009 SC 879’.

6. Reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner after verification of the answer scripts on 16.10.2020 stating inter-alia that the answer scripts produced do not bear any evaluation marks/remarks of the examiners or the marks allotted by the examiners to each answer, but a plain unevaluated answer scripts along with filled up script marks report which is separately attached is produced before this Court and the same is contrary to the judgments in Dr. P Kishore Kumar’s case (1st supra) and ‘Yerra Trinadh & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2019 ALT (5) 409’ and that answer scripts do not bear any trace of evaluation.

7. Now the point for consideration is, whether the examiners have scrupulously followed the directions given in the earlier deci