IMPORTANT POINT
Re-evaluation of answer scripts is only permissible when the difference in marks exceeds 20%, as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22.08.2023, passed in W.P. No.15426 of 2023, whereby while allowing the writ petition, the learned single Judge has directed the re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in respect of General Medicine Papers - I and II by a third examiner.

With a view to understand the background in which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give in brief the material facts.

2. The petitioner was admitted to the MBBS course in the year 2018. She appeared in the final year MBBS examination conducted in the month of December, 2022, and is stated to have failed in the subject of General Medicine. The petitioner applied for recounting of the marks as per the statutes, which did not result in any change in her result. She then applied for verification of her papers - I and II in the subject of General Medicine and was called to verify her answer scripts.

The petitioner's stand before the learned single Judge was that upon verification of the answer scripts, she noticed that only 0.5 marks had been allotted to her in regard to a question which carried ten marks. According to her, even when she had answered the question correctly, less marks were allotted to her on account of negligence or carelessness of the evaluator. Her confidence and faith in her academic capacity is attributed to the fact that she had done extremely well in the past examinations which she had undertaken during the rest of her MBBS course. It is in that backdrop that she prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for re-evaluation of the answer scripts by a Committee of three experts.

3. In the reply-affidavit filed by the YSR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, as also the Controller of Examinations of the said University, the stand taken was that the University had adopted a double evaluation system for evaluating the answer scripts of the MBBS students whereby each theory paper of a student is evaluated by two eligible and qualified examiners independently. The papers, it is stated, are evaluated digitally according to the prescribed guidelines. It is further stated that if the difference between two evaluations is more than 20%, then that particular theory paper is sent to a third eligible qualified evaluator for evaluation and award of marks. Whereas in the first case scenario, if the difference between the two evaluations is less than 20%, then the marks evaluated by the two evaluators are determined in the following fashion:

"The first evaluator awards 20 marks and a second evaluator awards 26 marks in a particular paper, then the marks, which will actually be awarded to a candidate, will be 20 + 26 = 46/2 = 23 marks."

4. In the present case, the stand of the respondents was that the petitioner had been awarded the following marks on individual evaluation of papers - I and II of MBBS General Medicine:

It was also the case of the University that due procedure had been followed and all the questions attempted by the petitioner had been evaluated and that it was not permissible to direct the re evaluation of the answer scripts of papers - I and II in the said subject yet again by a third evaluator, as had been prayed for.

5. An additional affidavit also was filed by the petitioner in which it was sought to be projected that while the petitioner had verified her papers on the computer, the same did not contain any ?(tick mark) or X mark, as none were seen by her, whereas when the answer scripts were produced by the University in the open Court, there were green ticks found to her surprise. What was stated in her additional affidavit is reproduced hereunder:

"I further submit that in computer there is no "tick" or 'X' marks seen by me and when this Hon'ble Co