Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(AP) 373

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Gade Srikavya - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14994 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned counsel for petitioner, for the Appellant; Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent, for the Respondent

Non-mentioning of remarks on digital answer sheets by examiners amounts to non-evaluation, and violates the guidelines issued by the university and the observations made in earlier decisions.

Headnote:
MEDICAL EDUCATION - MBBS - EVALUATION OF ANSWER SCRIPTS - DIGITAL EVALUATION - NON-MENTIONING OF REMARKS ON THE ANSWER SCRIPTS - WHETHER AMOUNTS TO NON-EVALUATION - WRIT PETITION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - DIRECTIONS TO RE-EVALUATE THE ANSWER SCRIPTS - MCI NORMS - GUIDELINES FOR DIGITAL EVALUATION - ADITYA BANDOPADHYAYA'S CASE (2011) 8 SCC 497 - RELIED UPON.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a final year MBBS student, challenged the results of her MBBS Part-I examination, alleging that her answer scripts were not properly evaluated. She had failed in three subjects: ENT, Ophthalmology, and SPM (Community Medicine). The petitioner claimed that the examiners had not mentioned any remarks or marks on her answer scripts, despite the university providing them with digital tools for evaluation. She relied on the decision in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2016 (6) ALT 408], where the court had held that non-mentioning of remarks on digital answer sheets amounted to non-evaluation.
Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the petitioner's answer scripts did not contain any marks or remarks, and that the marks were only mentioned on a separate sheet. The court held that this was in violation of the guidelines issued by the university and the observations made in earlier decisions, including Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case. The court noted that the examiners had not used the digital tools provided to them to mention remarks on the answer scripts, and that this amounted to non-evaluation.
Issues: Whether the examiners had scrupulously followed the guidelines of the university and the observations made in earlier decisions in the process of evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar's case, where the Supreme Court had held that the use of available technology such as Adobe, PDF, Wacom, Stylus, etc., would have certainly helped the university to achieve the objectives which it wanted to achieve by online evaluation. The court also noted that the legitimate expectation of a student is that the answers written are at least looked at and appreciated for evaluation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the university to get the petitioner's answer scripts in the three subjects re-evaluated once again by identifying two fresh examiners. The examiners were directed to mention their remarks as well as the marks awarded for each answer clearly on the uploaded answer scripts by using digital tools. The corrected answer sheets were to be preserved for future review. The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by the university.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of her answer scripts of (i) ENT (ii) Opthalmology and (iii) SPM (Community Medicine) subjects of MBBS final year Part-I exam held in March/April 2021 and June 2021 (Hall Ticket No.15079034).

2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for final year MBBS Part-I examination held in March/April 2021 and June 2021 with Hall Ticket No.15079034. The examination was conducted by 2nd respondent University. However, there was a large scale violation of the regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of answer scripts. In the results announced by 2nd respondent University, the petitioner got failed in three subjects i.e., ENT, Opthalmology and SPM (Community Medicine). She was awarded 15/25 minimum required marks, 15/25 marks and 59/65 marks in ENT, Opthalmology and SPM (Community Medicine) theory subjects respectively. It is submitted that though the petitioner wrote the examinations in March 2021, but due to some technical reasons the 2nd respondent cancelled the theory exam in the subject of SPM (Community Medicine) which was held on 22.03.2021 and re-conducted the same on 10.06.2021 and declared the results of all the three subjects of Final MBBS Part-1 on 21.06.2021. Immediately the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University by submitting an application for re-totaling of SPM (Community Medicine) subject and in the re-totaling also, there was no change in the result. It is contended that the petitioner is in doubt that any mistake might have occurred while 2nd respondent university in digitally evaluating her answer scripts by the examiners, because there is probability of omissions and commissions which would have resulted in improper valuation of her answer sheets. On 12.07.2021, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University and submitted an application under the RTI Act to permit her for physical verification of her answer scripts. After personal verification on 24.07.2021, it was found that there were no marks or remarks to show that her answer script was evaluated. Though the 2nd respondent University has adapted digital evaluation, there were no signs of usage of the digital tools to show that her answer scripts were corrected or evaluated. It is further contended that though the petitioner has written the examination well, but she was declared as “failed” in final MBBS Part-I theory subjects with a thinner margin of pass marks because of improper evaluation done by 2nd respondent university without following earlier judgments of this Court. The petitioner apprehends that there was a gross irregularity in the evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. The petitioner came to know that the students of her ilk have filed batch of writ petitions and they were allowed and High Court of A.P. passed orders for re-evaluation in terms of the guidelines issued for digital evaluation of the answer scripts.

Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus:

The petitioner has taken examination for final MBBS Part-I held in March/April 2021 and the results were pronounced in June 2021 and she was declared as failed in three subjects i.e., ENT, Opthalmology & SPM. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-totaling in the subject of SPM and after re-totaling there was no change in the result and the same was placed in the University website on 14.07.2021. The petitioner attended for personal verification of her answer scripts on 24.07.2021. After verification, she acknowledged that her answer scripts were valued by the examiners, vide acknowledgement dated 24.07.2021. The marks were evaluated as per the MCI norms and guidelines. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(AP) 373

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHIU. Durga Prasad Rao, J.Gade Srikavya - AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh - RespondentWrit Petition No. 14994 of 2021Decided On : 04-08-2021

Non-mentioning of remarks on digital answer sheets by examiners amounts to non-evaluation, and violates the guidelines issued by the university and the observations made in earlier decisions.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Gade Srikavya - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14994 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021