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.1225 OF 2026 DATE: 09.01.2026 Between :

Ette Rahul Siddarth Reddy … 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 Human Anatomy 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 Human Anatomy theory paper of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to verify the answer sheet of MBBS First year Human Anatomy theory paper and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is an MBBS student at RVM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Mulugu, who had been admitted in the academic year 2024–2025 and appeared for the MBBS First Year Examination conducted by the 2nd respondent University in November 2025. On declaration of the results, the petitioner passed in Biochemistry and Physiology but failed in Human Anatomy. In Human Anatomy, the petitioner secured 79 out of 200 marks in theory—one mark short of the minimum required—and 71 out of 100 marks in practicals. As the petitioner failed to secure the requisite aggregate of 50% in theory and practical combined, the petitioner was declared failed in the subject. Believing that the petitioner had performed well in the theory examination and suspecting improper evaluation, the petitioner sought revaluation of petitioner’s theory answer script. The University informed him that its regulations permit only recounting of marks and not revaluation. The petitioner accordingly applied for recounting, but no change in marks was found. Subsequently, the petitioner requested personal verification and supply of petitioner’s answer script, which was also denied on the ground that the University rules do not provide for personal verification or furnishing of answer scripts beyond recounting. Aggrieved by the denial of revaluation and personal verification, and apprehending errors in decoding, scanning, uploading, or evaluation of petitioner’s theory 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 examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category