I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.1253 OF 2026 DATE: 09.01.2026 Between :

Devesh Sai Gorrela … Petitioner A n d The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad & another … Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri L. Ram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayanrao University of Health Sciences appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

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

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not conducting revaluation of answer sheets of MBBS First year Physiology theory paper of the petitioner as bad in law and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith to re-evaluate answer sheet of MBBS First Year Physiology theory paper of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to verify the answer sheet of MBBS First year Physiology theory paper and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that petitioner is an MBBS student admitted to Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, during the academic year 2024–2025. In the MBBS First Year Examinations conducted by the respondent University in November 2025, the petitioner had appeared for Biochemistry, Human Anatomy, and Physiology. While the petitioner passed Biochemistry and Human Anatomy, the petitioner was declared failed in Physiology.In Physiology, the petitioner secured 83 out of 100 marks in the practical examination and 79 out of 200 marks in the theory examination. As the minimum pass mark in theory was 80, and the petitioner failed to secure the required aggregate of 50% in theory and practical combined, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the subject. Suspecting errors in the evaluation of petitioner’s Physiology theory answer script, the petitioner approached the University authorities and the petitioner was informed that revaluation was not permissible under the University regulations, though recounting of marks was allowed. The petitioner applied for recounting; however, no change in marks was made. Continuing to apprehend improper evaluation and possible errors in decoding, scanning, uploading, or assessment of petitioner’s answer script, the petitioner sought revaluation, personal verification, and supply of petitioner’s theory answer script. These requests were denied on the ground that University rules permit only recounting and do not allow revaluation or personal verification. Aggrieved by the denial of revaluation and access to petitioner’s answer script, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

4. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2011 (8) SCC Page 497 in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others at Para No.18 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 RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the