Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 221
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Dr Mohammed Ateeq Ur Rahman – Petitioner
Versus
National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.4193 of 2024
Decided On : 03-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr P.V.Krishnaiah
For the Respondent: Dy Solicitor General of India
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that re-evaluation is not permitted for already assessed answers, emphasizing adherence to examination guidelines.
Headnote:
Evaluation - Examination Results - Clause 5.2.1, Clause 6.6 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding grace marks and re-evaluation, concluding that the petitioner did not qualify for re-evaluation as all answers were assessed, thus upholding the examination authority's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, having failed the DNB/DrNB Final Examination with 143 marks, sought re-evaluation of answer scripts, claiming all answers were correct and challenging the assessment process as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not qualify for grace marks or re-evaluation under the relevant clauses, as all answers were assessed and none marked as unattempted, thus affirming the examination authority's decision.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to re-evaluation of the answer scripts and if the examination authority's decision was arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions in the examination guidelines clearly restrict re-evaluation of already assessed answers, and the petitioner did not meet the criteria for grace marks.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a representation for re-evaluation, which the respondents must consider as an exceptional case.
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mr Gadi Praveen Kumar, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“...declaring the Clause 6.6 (para 8) Declaration of DNB/DrNB Final Examination Result (para 8) of DNB/DrNB Final Examination October 2023 Information Bulletin and consequential communication sent by the 2nd respondent by e-mail dated 23.01.2024 in so far as it relates not conducting re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner with roll No.2325051050 for the Examinations for Super Specialties in the DNB/DrNB Final Examination October 2023 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional violating Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the respondents to forthwith conduct the re-evaluation of the answer scripts of Petitioner with roll No.2325051050 for the Examinations for Super specialties DNB/DrNB Final Examination October 2023 by appointing second examiners and declaring the result of the petitioner afresh and take appropriate further action including issuing the certificates for DrNB (Super Specialty), Or in the alternative: Declare the result of the petitioner after conducting valuation/assessment by the second examiner and based on the average mark of the earlier assessment made by the first examiner and second assessment made by the second examiner by directing the respondents to conduct assessment/valuation by the second examiner of the answer sheets of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
A. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, and in particular, paras 6, 7 and 8, read as under:
“6. It is submitted that the petitioner has scored 143 marks out of 300 in theory examination. In terms of the Information Bulletin clause 5.2.1, "Grace marks of up to 2% of maximum marks i.e. 6/300 shall be given only to the candidates falling in the zone of consideration i.e. securing between 144-149 marks out of 300." Since he has scored 143 marks, he is not eligible for grace marks.
7. It is submitted that the information bulletin further provides under clause 6.6 that there shall be a provision for re-evaluation of unassessed answer(s) only, in a rare event of an answer(s) being wrongly marked as NOT ATTEMPTED by the assessor. Request for re-evaluation of an unassessed answer(s) can be made through the Communication Web Portal of NBEMS within 45 calendar days of the declaration of theory result of the concerned specialty. An administrative fee of Rs. 500/- per paper shall be charged for the same which can be paid online through NBEMS website. Requests for re-evaluation of an unassessed answer(s) made after 45 calendar days of the declaration of theory result shall not be entertained. There shall be no re-evaluation of already assessed answers.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner request for digital copies of answer scripts has been received at Communication web portal on 09.01.2024 and the same has been provided to him on 23.01.2024. The answer scripts of the petitioner have no unassessed question and all the 10 questions in all the three papers of DrNB Cardiology have been evaluated by the assessors. All his answers have been assessed and awarded marks for all the questions in all the three papers. No question has been awarded as NA - "Not attempted" by the assessors. Accordingly, he does not qualify for provisions under clause 6.6. The said clause 6.6 further clarifies that there shall be no re-evaluation o already assessed answers.
B) Communication dated 23.01.2023 sent by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner through e-mail, reads as under:
“Madam,
This is with reference to the matter listed today before Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. The WP
