I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.342 OF 2026 DATE: 07.01.2026 BETWEEN:

Dr. Boggaram Meghana …Petitioner And Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Warangal, Telangana, 506 002, represented by its Registrar & 3 others ….Respondents

ORDER

Heard Miss Kota Venkata Phani Sree, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayanrao University of Health Sciences appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue an order, direction or writ particular one in the nature of writ Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide the petitioner with a copy of her corrected answer scripts pertaining to MDS Part II Examination, with Hall Ticket/Enrollment number 22200104004, held in the month of November, 2025, conducted by respondent No.1 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case”.

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth through mail dated 15.12.2025 seeking to provide a photocopy of the petitioner’s answer sheet pertaining to MDS part II examination held in November, 2025 with Hall Ticket/Enrollment Number 22200104004 from Sri Sai Institute of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in spite of the specific request of the petitioner vide petitioner’s representation dated 15.12.2025 addressed to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 had not considered the same till date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 23.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.31881 of 2025 and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner in W.P. No.31881 of 2025 for consideration of petitioner’s request as put forth in the present writ petition by approached the grievance committee of the 1^st respondent University.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 do not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2011 8 SCC 497 in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, in particular the relevant para No.18, is observed as under:

“18.… What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer books as ‘information’ and inspect them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTC Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye- laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books, even if such