ORDER:

Questioning the action of the respondents 2 & 3 in conducting digital evaluation process contrary to the principles laid down in judgment passed in WP.No.12418 of 2021 in respect of petitioner9s 1st year MBBS Course in the subject of Human Anatomy Paper held in the month of May/June, 2022 and not furnishing copies of the petitioner9s answer scripts for the said subject to the petitioner for verification, 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 GEMS Medical College, Srikakulam, affiliated to the 2nd respondent – NTR University of Health Sciences, having got admission in the said course in the year 2020. She appeared for the 1st year MBBS examinations conducted in the month of January, 2022 in three subjects but she failed in all the three subjects. Therefore, she appeared for the supplementary examinations conducted by the 2nd respondent in the month of May/June, 2022. She cleared two subjects i.e., Physiology and Bio-Chemistry but failed in Human Anatomy subject. She successfully attempted the Human Anatomy paper also but she got only 81 marks in two papers of Human Anatomy. 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. She applied for revaluation of the said subject to the 2nd respondent University. The request of the petitioner was considered and it was stated upon revaluation that there is no change of marks awarded by the examiners. 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 application of mind and award of marks have to be put on the digital papers and the scanned answer scripts should be made available for verification. The above process has to be done as per the directions of this Court in the cited case. The said process is held to be transparent process and would eliminate the vagaries of the examiners. The students, who come up to the level of Medical Education have to put lot of efforts and in determining their abilities a fool proof mechanism has to be adopted and the answer scripts cannot be evaluated in slip short manner. The physical remarks made in the answer scripts are reflection of award