Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 870 ; 2025 Supreme(AP) 870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Dr Aswanth Badvelu, Hall Ticket No; 1571303, S/o B. Mohan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Dr Y S R University of Health Sciences, rep by its Registrar Vijayawada Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh State – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 2467 of 2023
Decided on : 05-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI G CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO
For the Respondent: SRI GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR (SC FOR DR YSR HEALTH UNIVERSITY)
Candidates have no right to demand re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provisions in examination rules.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 - Writ of Mandamus - Petition challenging non-evaluation of answer scripts in M.S. Orthopedics - Evaluator's variations noted - Court determined no relevant rules for re-evaluation exist and affirmed that candidates lack entitlement to demand it. (Paras 4, 5.1)
(B) Educational Law - Re-evaluation of answer scripts - The law is well established that without specific provisions, candidates cannot claim re-evaluation rights; even scrutiny does not extend to re-evaluation. (Paras 4.1, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a student of M.S. Orthopedics, contested not being considered for re-evaluation of exams wherein he narrowly failed by 5 marks aggregate. He argued significant variations in examined papers. Previous directions in a case were cited regarding re-evaluation standards.
Findings of Court:
No rights exist for candidates to demand re-evaluation without explicit provisions in regulations. Therefore, the High Court did not have grounds to mandate re-evaluation.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the petitioner had the right to seek re-evaluation based on the evaluation inadequacies and the legality of prior court directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the absence of explicit provisions for re-evaluation in examination rules limits the rights of candidates to demand reevaluation and confirmed that current evaluation practices align with established legal principles.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
1. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner; Sri S. Sriram, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents and Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. Y.S.R. (presently NTR) University of Health Sciences.
2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under:
“....to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action ofthe respondents in not considering petitioner's case for fresh evaluation of answer scripts in M.S. Orthopedics Speciality as highly, arbitrarily, unjust, unauthorized and contrary to the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.JHo.32336/2022, apart from being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings No. E2(B)/PG/1066/CC/May, 2022/Exams dated 29.10.2022 of the 4 respondent and pass such other order...."
Submissions of the Ld. Councel for the Write Petitioner :
3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner is prosecuting the Post Graduate Medical Course in M.S. Orthopedic Speciality in Shanthiram Medical College, Nandyal; that the college is affiliated to the Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences (Respondent N0.I); that the Writ Petitioner is a M.S. Orthopedic PG Student, at the completion of the course, is required to appear in PG Medical examination consisting of four papers of 100 marks each; minimum pass mark being 40, the candidate is however required to get the aggregate of 200 marks out of 400 marks; that in the examinations conducted iin April/May, 2022, the Petitioner, having appeared and having declared as failed with a thin deficit margin of 5 marks for the aggregate of 200 marks; that the answer scripts have not been evaluated properly; that the Writ Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.32336 of 2022; that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner was permitted to personally inspect the answer scripts; that when the answer scripts were personally inspected, the Writ Petitioner has noticed that there are lot of ‘examiners’ variations’ in respect of various papers written by the Writ Petitioner; that by an order dated 13.09.2022 the Writ Petition was disposed of with certain directions thereby giving liberty to the students to submit representation to the University individually and that the University, after considering the such representations to decide for re-evaluation wherever it is necessary by using software adopted by the University as per the rules and regulations.
3.1. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Expert Committee, after verifying the answer scripts of the Writ Petitioner opined that there is no necessity for re-evaluation; that the Writ Petitioner has submitted one more representation on 11.12.2022 in detail pointing out the examiners’ variations in the matter of evaluation of answer scripts that necessitated ordering fresh re-evaluation; that the copy of the marks awarded by individual examiners against each question for all the four papers are also filed along with the present Writ Petition; that in Paper-Ill there is steep decrease in award of marks by the examiner qua 1st 2nd and 3rd examiners; and that as per the examination scheme for PG Medical Courses, if a candidate fails even in one paper, he has to re-appear in all the four papers in the next examination; that in the event of the candidate passing the PG Course in the next examination, and such a step will have a bearing on the candidates who are seeking admission into Super Speciality Courses or employment either in Government or private sectors; that the examiners appointed by the 1st respondent have not used the stylus for notation of marks/remarks; that the marks allotted by them to each answer to the each answer is in complete violation of the orders of various Courts; and, that a script marks report is attached to the answ
