##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION Nos.38209 and 38211 of 2025

2^ND APRIL, 2026

W.P. No.38209 of 2025 Between:

Nookathota Anjali Goutam … Petitioner

W.P. No. 38211 of 2025 Mahalle Sushrut Ranjit

AND

Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,

National Medical Commission And 4 others …Respondents

COMMON ORDER :

These writ petitions are filed seeking the following relief:

“issue an order, writ, or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring, the inaction of the respondents, in considering the email request of the petitioner dated 27.11.2025 to conduct revaluation of petitioner’s Biochemistry Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS supplementary University Examinations, October-2025 in Roll.No.2024001001015 in W.P.No.38209 of 2025 and in conducting revaluation of petitioner’s Human Anatomy Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations, November- 2025 in Roll No.2024001001094 in W.P.No.38211 of 2011 and 3^rd respondent stating that only a re-totaling is permissible and final but not re-valuation of exam sheets, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, prejudiced, unconstitutional, against Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India coupled with flagrant violation of the rules of University Grants Commission and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to conduct a revaluation of the petitioners Answer Scripts in First

2

Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations in Biochemistry and Human Anatomy, with different set of evaluators and pass such other order …”

2. Since the relief prayed for in both the writ petitions is similar in nature, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common

order.

3. Heard Mr.Chintala Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Ravinder Reddy Muppu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4

and 5. Perused the record.

4. Case of the petitioners is that despite having made adequate preparation for the examinations and being confident of their performance, they were declared unsuccessful in the MBBS First Year examinations in the subject of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy. Being aggrieved by the said result and believing that their answer scripts were not properly evaluated, they approached the respondent authorities seeking access to their answer scripts and requesting revaluation by a second set of valuators. However, the respondent authorities rejected their request and instead directed

them to apply for re-totaling of marks.

3

5. Further case of the petitioners is that as per the applicable rules, a student who fails in any subject in the First Year MBBS course, is not eligible for promotion to the next academic year and will be detained in the same year. Notably, such a stringent rule is not applicable to the subsequent four academic years of the MBBS course. In these circumstances, the petitioners contend that they have no opportunity to clear backlogs, while progressing academically, as promotion to the next year is strictly contingent upon passing all subjects. Therefore, they specifically pleaded the respondents to re-evaluate their answer scripts, but there was no response from the respondents. Subsequently, when the petitioners approached the respondent-university, they were orally informed that re-evaluation is not permissible and only re-totaling of marks

can be done. Hence, the writ petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite repeated requests for revaluation of the petitioners’ answer scripts pertaining to the MBBS First Year theory examinations in the subjects of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy by a different set of evaluators, the respondent-university has failed to consider the same. He further submits that the respondent-University has conducted