IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION No.11133 of 2026 DATED: 20^th APRIL, 2026 Between Smt. T. Sruti ...Petitioner AND The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department and four others ...Respondents

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:

“...to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent no 1 to 5 in not giving information i e the evaluation sheets containing marks awarded by evaluators and not issuing certified copies of evaluated answer sheets for Papers I II and III on costs of the petitioner as illegal arbitrary contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently the Respondent no 3 to 5 to issue certified copies of evaluated answer sheets for paper I paper II paper III of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and pass...”

02. Heard Sri Aitharaju Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Sharat, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 i.e. Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences. Perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a postgraduate student pursuing MDS (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Part-II, 2025 (New Regulations), from Malla Reddy Dental College for Women, affiliated to the respondent-University. She appeared for the examinations conducted in November, 2025 and performed well; however, she was declared unsuccessful by a margin of two marks. It is contended that the answer scripts were not properly evaluated. Though the petitioner applied for re-totaling, there was no change in the result. Thereafter, she submitted an application dated 25.11.2025 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking copies of evaluated answer scripts for Papers I, II, and III. Upon denial, she preferred an appeal dated 19.01.2026 under Section 19(1) of the Act and also submitted a further representation dated 28.02.2026. However, the authorities rejected the request stating that the information sought is confidential and not disclosable. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

04. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-University authorities submitted that as per the regulations governing the University, evaluated answer scripts, marks awarded by examiners, and valuation guidelines are treated as confidential and are not liable to be disclosed. It is further contended that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of re-totaling and, therefore, no further relief can be granted. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

05. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the core issue pertains to the petitioner’s request for disclosure of evaluated answer scripts and valuation details. The said information is governed by the regulations of the respondent- University. The University has taken a categorical stand that such material is confidential in nature and is not liable to be disclosed.

06. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of re-totaling, and no discrepancy was found therein. The scope of judicial review in academic matters, particularly relating to evaluation of answer scripts, is extremely limited. Courts ordinarily do not sit in appeal over the decision of expert bodies unless there is a clear case of mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, except making a bald allegation that the answer scripts were not properly evaluated, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the same. Further, the petitioner seeks disclosure of evaluated answer scripts under the Right to Information Act, which request has already been considered and rejected by the competent authorities citing confidentiality under the applicable regulations. In the absence of any statutory