Point of law: It is the legitimate expectation of the students that the answers written are atleast looked at and appreciated for evaluation and in the case on hand, the script answer reports are treated as evaluation of answer scripts and no material is placed to satisfy that the evaluation of answer scripts, in fact, had taken place and script marks report is summary of such evaluation.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed ‘to declare the action of the respondents in conducting the digital evaluation process contrary to the principles laid down in ‘Dr. P.Kishore Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2016(6) ALT 408 ’and ‘Dr. J.Kiran Kumar & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh’2017(6) ALT 213 and not allowing the petitioner to physically examine the answer scripts and furnishing copies of the answer scripts, as illegal and arbitrary.’

2. Case of the petitioner is that, she is a student of BDS in the college affiliated to the 1st respondent-University; she appeared for final year BDS examination held in September/October, 2020; as per the scheme of examination, a booklet containing 64 pages will be supplied to each student and the answer scripts will be evaluated by two examiners independently and the marks awarded by the two examiners will be clubbed and average marks will be taken and basing on the same, 1st the results of the students will be declared; the respondent introduced the digitalized evaluation system from 2016; in respect of BDS examination, the scheme of the examination which contains 8 subjects, where each subject comprises of theory and practical papers with 100 marks; though she has written the examination well she was declared failed; lot of aberrations took place in the process of evaluation of answer scripts; 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’s case (supra) and the non compliance of the said direction in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar’s case (supra) was pointed out in ‘Dr.J. Kiran Kumar’ s case (supra); in Dr. Kishore Kumar’s case (supra), it was held that when the digital answer scripts were evaluated, stylus marks, tick marks etc. evidencing the application of the mind and award of marks have to be put on the digital paper. This Court in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar’s case (supra) pointed out that entering marks in the ‘script marks report’ is not sufficient and scanned answer sheets should show the evidence of evaluation; 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 from May/June, 2016. 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; keeping in view the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the University made arrangements to evaluate the answer scripts on digital basis; the University has given a single booklet; after receiving the said booklets/ answer scripts, the University scanned the entire booklet; while scanning the answer scripts of entire booklet, the question of missing their answer sheets does not arise, because each page of the booklet having barcode with page number; after verifying the same, the digital valuation has been started and the same was uploaded and sent to the valuation centers by the University; the answer scripts of the petitioner show that the examiners who valued used the tools; there are no mistakes or lapses on the part of University while conducting the digital valuation’; there is no regulation for revaluation of the answer scripts either in the MCI regulations or the University regulations, which was upheld by the Apex Court in ‘Sahiti & others vs. Chancellor, NTR University of Health Sciences, AIR 2009 SC 879’ and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner after verification of the answer scripts which were produced in Court on 11.02.2021 stating inter-alia that the answer scripts produced do not bear any evaluation marks/remarks of the examiners or the marks all