In a writ petition challenging a failed result due to digital evaluation defects, the High Court allowed inspection of answer scripts. Finding the process complied with prior judicial guidelines after verification, the petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed; no re-evaluation directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16787 of 2022
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the respondents 2 & 3 in conducting digital evaluation process contrary to the principles laid down in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar v. State of AP [2016(6) ALT 408] and Dr.J.Kiran Kumar and others v. State of AP [2017(6) ALT 213] in respect of petitioner’s 3rd year MBBS course examinations held in the month of May, 2022 and not furnishing copies of the petitioner’s answer scripts (for failed subjects), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, the present writ petition came to be filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Vijay Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is this:
The petitioner is prosecuting 1st year MBBS course in Dr.Pinnamaneni Siddartha Institute of Medical Sciences, Gannavaram, affiliated to the 2nd respondent – NTR University of Health Sciences, having got admission in the said course under C category in the year 2019. He appeared for the 1st year MBBS examinations conducted in the month of May, 2022 for three subjects viz., Human Anatomy I & II,
2
Physiology I & II and Bio-Chemistry I & II. He failed in Human Anatomy subject. Each subject of the first year course consists of two papers and minimum marks for each paper is 40 out of 100 but aggregate total minimum is 100 out of 200. Petitioner was awarded 41 marks in Paper I and 37 marks in paper-II totalling 78 marks. Though he got a minimum of 40%, he failed for not getting average of 50 marks. The admission into MBBS, conduct of examinations, scheme of examination etcetera shall have to be made in terms of the regulations made by the National Medical Council of India, a statutory body established, by replacing the Medical Council of India. He was awarded 141 marks in Human Anatomy. He failed with a thinner margin of nine marks. As per the Rules, if a person passes two subjects out of three subjects and if scores 95 marks in the 3rd subject, he will be given five grace marks. Hence, if he is able to get few more marks in the failed subject, he would be promoted to II year MBBS automatically. Therefore, he made an application to provide copies of the answer scripts. Unless the said exercise is completed the purpose of making application would be frustrated. When the petitioner intended to make an application for re-evaluation, the authorities refused to receive the same. Pursuant to the online results, petitioner applied for recounting of marks. But strangely the authorities of the 2nd respondent University informed that students will not be allowed to
3
see their answer scripts at the time of recounting process and that only the committee constituted by the University would do that. There is no regulation or Rule made by the University as regards the said procedure. Hence, aggrieved by the action of the respondents 2 & 3, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scheme of examination, a booklet containing 64 pages will be supplied to each student for writing the answers. Earlier, double valuation system was introduced by the 2nd respondent university while evaluating the answer scripts as per which the 1st examiner has to evaluate the answer script and award the marks which is confidential. The said answer scripts have to be sent to the 2nd examiner and after awarding the marks by the 2nd examiner, aggregate will be taken into consideration for awarding the marks in the said subjects and the results will be declared. While so, few years back, the 2nd respondent introduced the digitalized evaluation system as per which the individual answer scripts of the students will be scanned and such scanned answer scripts would be evaluated by two examiners one after the other.
He relied on the decision in Dr.Kishore Kumar v. State of A.P [(2016)6 ALT 408] wherein this Court held that when the digital
4
answer scripts are evaluated, stylus marks, tick marks, etc., evidencing the application of mind and award of marks have to be put on the digital papers and the scanned answer scripts should be made available for verification. The above process has to be done as per the directions of this Court in the cited case. The said process is held to be transparent process and would eliminate the vagaries of the examiners. The students, who come up to the level of Medical Education have to put lot of efforts and in determining their abilities a fool proof mechanism has to be adopted and the answer scripts cannot be evaluated in slip short manner. The physical remarks made in the answer scripts are reflection of award of marks on the answer scripts, which is sine-qua-non. The respondents 2 & 3 adopted a different procedure in a whimsical fashion, which is ex facie illegal.
He further submits that the imperfection in the process of digital valuation by the agency in respect of Post Graduate students was pointed out by this Court in the cited case and non compliance of the direction in the said order was pointed out in Dr.J.Kiran Kumar and others v. State of A.P [(2017) 6 ALT 213] wherein this Court pointed out that entering marks in the ‘script marks report’ is not sufficient and scanned answer sheets should show the evidence of evaluation. The agency is not perfect in undertaking the job and without looking into
5
the capability of the examiners, the Vice-Chancellor should not have allowed digital valuation of answer scripts of under graduate students who are more in number. The digital valuation cannot be undertaken without framing an appropriate Statute by the Executive Council under Section 30 of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986. Hence, digital valuation is irregular and imperfect which affected the petitioner’s result.
In similar circumstances, earlier when the respondents failed to adhere to the legal principles set-forth by this Court, various students approached this Court by filing WP.Nos.9486 & 10376 of 2019 wherein this Court has summoned the answer scripts and on perusal of the same came to the conclusion that the digital evaluation process is not done as per the directions issued by this Court in Dr.Kishore Kumar’s case and accordingly directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to get the answer scripts freshly evaluated by four examiners (in respect of PG students) out of whom 2 should be internal examiners and 2 should be external examiners and to follow the guidelines laid down in Dr.Kishore Kumar’s case. Against the said orders, respondents 2 & 3 preferred appeal in W.A.No.363/2019 & 364 of 2019 and a Division Bench, after elaborate consideration of the matter, dismissed the appeals by judgment dated 31.10.2019 and the same has become final.
6
Even after the above judgments, the 2nd respondent without following the same got evaluated the answer scripts of the candidates who appeared for the examinations in the month of November, 2020, in contravention of the legal principles laid down by this Court. For the above reasons, the petitioner believes that the 2nd respondent also not got evaluated petitioner’s answer scripts and there are several aberrations in the evaluation process.
The examiners appointed by the 2nd respondent have not used the stylus for notation of marks/remarks or the marks allotted by them to each answer, which is in complete violation of the aforesaid orders of this Court. Even now a separate script marks report is attached to the answer sheet raising doubt about its link to the answer sheet and evaluation of answers. Therefore, there is a legitimate doubt about the method of digital evaluation adopted even this time. The 2nd respondent has not even given the split marks awarded to the students for each paper by each evaluator. The 2nd respondent has not invited the examiners from outside the University/State. If the petitioner is allowed to verify his answer scripts physically in the presence of the 2nd respondent authorities, the truth or otherwise of the matter would come to light.
7
Learned standing counsel, while reiterating the averments made
in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, submitted that the petitioner appeared for the I year MBBS examinations for the second time in May/June, 2022 and in the results pronounced, he was declared as failed in one subject i.e., Human Anatomy. In the month of March, 2022 vide University letter No.1102/E1C/MBBS/Exams/2022-1, dated 31.03.2022, it was clearly specified that the University has implemented the digital valuation of the answer scripts from July/August, 2017 examinations and each and every student is very much aware about digital valuation of answer scripts. The university has taken a decision for introduction of double evaluation system in the year 2011 through University resolution. In the double evaluation system each paper of the subject shall be valued by two examiners independently and the average of the marks shall be taken into consideration for final marks of that paper. If there is variation of 20% or above of the 1st and 2nd valuations, the answer script shall be referred to 3rd valuation and the script will be valued by a new examiner. The above exercise increases the accuracy in the valuation system and transparency. The respondent university has given instructions to the principals of all UG/PG medical colleges and requested them to supervise the process of valuation and make necessary arrangements to establish the digital evaluation centers. As
8
per the resolution of the executive council dated 21.06.2016 the university introduced the valuation of the answer scripts only on digital mode but not manual, and the same was again resolved to continue the existing digital valuation process in its meeting held on 31.03..2022. The University has given clear instructions to the service provider regarding upgradation of tools used by the examiners while evaluation and also the examiners were instructed for usage of the tools. As per the decisions of this Court, University reviewed the process of digital valuation and the software adopted for that purpose in the meeting of executive council held on 31.03.2022 and resolved to use latest software for digital valuation. Accordingly, before commencement of process of digital valuation, a zoom meeting was conducted on 19.05.2022 with regard to upgradation of the software regarding incorporation of annotations to be used while valuation of answer scripts with all the Principals, camp officers and faculty of the medical colleges. In the said meeting several instructions have been issued regarding usage of annotations like tick mark (), cross mark [X], lines like underline/slanting line [/,__,] to mark on the answer script. Examiners shall put the marks on each page of the answer scripts question wise. Examiners shall highlight the particular portion of the answer by using the above tools by underlining the text. Examiners shall put the marks on each page (by splitting the maximum
9
marks given for that particular question) of a particular answer if answered in more than one page by the student. With the above instructions and manual for online valuation, faculty were trained before the commencement of theory valuation of answer scripts. The faculty have utilized the updated software by using the tools and annotations incorporated in the software adopted by the university. The answer scripts of the petitioner clearly show that the tools and annotations were used by the examiners. As such the principles laid down in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar and Dr.J.Kiran Kumar with regard to digital evaluation process were scrupulously followed by the university with the help of above measures. As per the regulations of Dr.NTR UHS and also as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6202 of 2008, the University/Vice-Chancellor has no power to revaluate the answer scripts. There is no regulation for revaluation of the answer scripts either in the MCI/NMC regulations or the university regulations. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The 2nd respondent authorities produced the answer sheets of the petitioner for the subject of Human Anatomy, for verification, on 28.06.2022. The petitioner/student appeared in person and was allowed to verify the answer script, in the presence of both the counsel and the authorities. The authorities produced the answer script of the
10
I & II paper in each subject. The petitioner was allowed to verify each paper as to whether the examiner evaluated the answer script each page by using the tools by putting annotations like tick () mark, ‘X’ mark, slanting lines, underlining while awarding marks to each question. Sufficient time was given to the petitioner without any hurry. This Court also verified the answer script of each paper. The student except raising the discrepancy in award of the marks by the 1st and 2nd examiner stating that one of the examiner awarded more marks to the same question whereas the other examiner awarded less marks, could not point out any violation of the regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of answer scripts. The awarding of marks is the pure discretion of the examiner/evaluator. The same cannot be found fault with. The authorities answered other doubts raised by the petitioner with regard to putting of tick () mark, ‘X’ mark and awarding of marks to each question at the end to the satisfaction of the Court and petitioner. This Court found that the examiners valuated the answer script of the petitioner correctly by using digital tools as per procedure and as per the guidelines prescribed by this Court in the case of Dr.P.Kishore Kumar (supra). The examiners evaluated the answer script of the petitioner with utmost care and caution without any deviation from the prescribed procedure as per digital scheme valuation and guidelines issued by this court in the case of Dr. J.
11
Kiran Kumar (supra). Further, in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.12418 of 2021, this Court having found on perusal of the answer script that they do not contain the marks like (), ‘X’, underlines or any other digital remarks and even the marks granted to each question were also not mentioned in the answer sheets, held that the decision in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar (supra) applies on all fours to the said case, allowed the said writ petition and directed the 2nd respondent to get the answer scripts of the petitioners therein evaluated once again as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying two fresh examiners for each answer script. In the case on hand, lapses pointed out in the earlier decision of this Court, have not occurred, to grant similar relief to the petitioner. This Court is aware of the decision of the Apex Court. It is settled legal principle that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in the academic matters, unless the action of the University suffers from arbitrariness, writ large on the face of its decision. Hence, this Court found that there are no merits in the writ petition and no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO 27.09.2022 Vjl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether university digital evaluation process violated principles of natural justice by failing to allow physical verification of answer scripts.
Whether theDIGITAL evaluation process followed for MBBS examinations complied with the guidelines laid down in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar and Dr.J.Kiran Kumar cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr.P.Kishore Kumar v. State of APApplied¶13
Dr.P.Kishore Kumar v. State of AP [2016(6) ALT 408]
Dr.J.Kiran Kumar and others v. State of APApplied¶16
Dr.J.Kiran Kumar and others v. State of AP [2017(6) ALT 213]
Various Students vs RespondentsReferred¶19
WP.Nos.9486 & 10376 of 2019
Appeal against WP.Nos.9486 & 10376Referred¶19
W.A.No.363/2019 & 364 of 2019
Unidentified PetitionerDistinguished¶34
WP.No.12418 of 2021
Petitioner
NTR University of Health Sciences
Respondents 2 & 3
M. GANGA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
