The non-mentioning of remarks on the answer sheets amounted to non-evaluation.

JUDGMENT

U Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of her answer scripts of Theory paper i.e., 1117 - Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for final BPT examination held in December 2020 (Hall Ticket No.16181043). 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 declared by the University, the petitioner was failed in one subject i.e., 1117- Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health and she secured 24 marks in the above subject. However, she secured good marks in Practical and in internals of the above subject. The petitioner is in suspicion that mistakes might occur while evaluating her subject theory paper because there were probable commissions and omissions which would have resulted in improper valuation of her answer sheets, where the service provider was authorized to decode, scan and upload answer sheets on the computer to transfer the answer sheets to the respective examiners for correction. The petitioner applied for re-totaling. The petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act on 22.01.2021 for personal verification of her paper and 2nd respondent sent the reply letter dated 15.02.2021 permitting the petitioner for personal verification of the subject theory answer script on 23.02.2021. She appeared on the said date and verified her answer scripts and there was no evaluation of the answer script except marks awarded on Script Marks Report. 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 for IV BPT examination held in December 2020 for Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health and in the results were pronounced she was declared as failed in one subject i.e., Rehabilitation Medicine including Geriatric Rehabilitation & Women's Health. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-totaling and after re-totaling there was no change in the result. The petitioner has applied for personal verification of her subject answer script under the RTI Act and the University vide letter dated 15.02.2021 permitted for the same on 23.02.2021 and she was satisfied with the same. The marks were evaluated as per the MCI norms and guidelines. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri R.Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.

5. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the answer sheets of the petitioner were not at all evaluated by the examiners which is writ large from the fact that in spite of the 2nd respondent/University providing them technical tools for evaluation like stylus marks, tick marks, 'X' marks and providing training through M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad in digital evaluation of the answer sheets, no such marks or comments were mentioned on the answer sheet by the concerned examiners. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that expect mentioning the marks in a separate 'Script Marks Report', the examiners have not mentioned any relevant comments or put tick marks on the digital answer scripts. Therefore, the answer sheets were not evaluated at all. He relied upon the decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar v.