ORDER:

Questioning the action of the respondents 2 & 3 in conducting digital evaluation process contrary to the principles laid down in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar v. State of AP [2016(6) ALT 408] and Dr.J.Kiran Kumar and others v. State of AP [2017(6) ALT 213] in respect of petitioner9s 3rd year MBBS course examinations held in the month of May, 2022 and not furnishing copies of the petitioner9s answer scripts (for failed subjects), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, the present writ petition came to be filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Vijay Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is this:

The petitioner is prosecuting 1st year MBBS course in Dr.Pinnamaneni Siddartha Institute of Medical Sciences, Gannavaram, affiliated to the 2nd respondent – NTR University of Health Sciences, having got admission in the said course under C category in the year 2019. He appeared for the 1st year MBBS examinations conducted in the month of May, 2022 for three subjects viz., Human Anatomy I & II, Physiology I & II and Bio-Chemistry I & II. He failed in Human Anatomy subject. Each subject of the first year course consists of two papers and minimum marks for each paper is 40 out of 100 but aggregate total minimum is 100 out of 200. Petitioner was awarded 41 marks in Paper I and 37 marks in paper-II totalling 78 marks. Though he got a minimum of 40%, he failed for not getting average of 50 marks. The admission into MBBS, conduct of examinations, scheme of examination etcetera shall have to be made in terms of the regulations made by the National Medical Council of India, a statutory body established, by replacing the Medical Council of India. He was awarded 141 marks in Human Anatomy. He failed with a thinner margin of nine marks. As per the Rules, if a person passes two subjects out of three subjects and if scores 95 marks in the 3rd subject, he will be given five grace marks. Hence, if he is able to get few more marks in the failed subject, he would be promoted to II year MBBS automatically. Therefore, he made an application to provide copies of the answer scripts. Unless the said exercise is completed the purpose of making application would be frustrated. When the petitioner intended to make an application for re-evaluation, the authorities refused to receive the same. Pursuant to the online results, petitioner applied for recounting of marks. But strangely the authorities of the 2nd respondent University informed that students will not be allowed to see their answer scripts at the time of recounting process and that only the committee constituted by the University would do that. There is no regulation or Rule made by the University as regards the said procedure. Hence, aggrieved by the action of the respondents 2 & 3, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme of examination, a booklet containing 64 pages will be supplied to each student for writing the answers. Earlier, double valuation system was introduced by the 2nd respondent university while evaluating the answer scripts as per which the 1st examiner has to evaluate the answer script and award the marks which is confidential. The said answer scripts have to be sent to the 2nd examiner and after awarding the marks by the 2nd examiner, aggregate will be taken into consideration for awarding the marks in the said subjects and the results will be declared. While so, few years back, the 2nd respondent introduced the digitalized evaluation system as per which the individual answer scripts of the students will be scanned and such scanned answer scripts would be evaluated by two examiners one after the other.

He relied on the decision in Dr.Kishore Kumar v. State of A.P [(2016)6 ALT 408] wherein this Court held that when the digital answer scripts are evaluated, stylus marks, tick marks, etc., evidencing the applicat