Dismissed¶¶85

Dr Aswanth Badvelu v. Dr Y S R University of Health Sciences

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jun 2025WP/2467/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

re-evaluation; fresh evaluation; answer scripts; PG medical examination; M.S. Orthopaedics; examiner variation; Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences (NTR University); Shanthiram Medical College Nandyal; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21; no right to re-evaluation absent rules; scrutiny only; judicial restraint in academic evaluation; Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh (Civil Appeal No.8037 of 2022); Pramod Kumar Srivastava (2004) 6 SCC 714; Ran Vijay Singh (2018) 2 SCC 357; Vikesh Kumar Gupta (2021) 2 SCC 309; Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The law is well settled that a candidate has no right to seek re-evaluation of the answer script. ¶¶81

Dr Aswanth Badvelu Vs Dr Y S R University of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶85

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's case for fresh evaluation of his answer scripts in M.S. Orthopaedics Specialty was arbitrary, unjust and unauthorised, contrary to the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P. No.32336/2022, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting setting aside of Proceedings dated 29.10.2022. +1 more

¶¶59

Ratio / Principle

The law is well settled that a candidate has no right to seek re-evaluation of the answer script.

¶¶81

Key takeaways

Following Pramod Kumar Srivastava (2004) 6 SCC 714, where the relevant rules provide for scrutiny only and contain no provision for re-evaluation, no candidate in an examination has any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.ratio¶¶83
It is impermissible to issue a Writ of Mandamus for re-evaluation of the four answer scripts; on that settled law, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit and must fail.ratio¶¶83

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.2467 of 2023 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati; Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.; decided 05.06.2025) — Re-evaluation of answer scripts — An M.S. Orthopaedics post-graduate student of Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences, declared failed in the April/May 2022 examinations with a deficit margin of 5 marks out of the aggregate of 200, sought fresh evaluation/re-evaluation of his answer scripts alleging examiners' variations, invoking an earlier order dated 13.09.2022 in W.P. No.32336 of 2022 and challenging Proceedings No. E2(B)/PG/1066/CC/May, 2022/Exams dated 29.10.2022 — HELD: the law is well settled that a candidate has no right to seek re-evaluation of the answer script; where the relevant rules provide for scrutiny only and contain no provision for re-evaluation, no candidate has any right whatsoever to claim re-evaluation of marks; it is impermissible to issue a Writ of Mandamus for re-evaluation of answer scripts under Article 226 — Following Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh (Civil Appeal No.8037 of 2022, Supreme Court) and Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 — Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

¶1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

+WRIT PETITION No.2467 of 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

#Dr. Aswanth Badvelu, ...PETITIONER

¶5

AND

¶6

$Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶7

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 05.06.2025

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? - Yes - 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes - 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? - Yes -

¶10

____________________________________________

¶11

JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶14

+WRIT PETITION No.2467 of 2023

% 05.06.2025

Between:

Dr. Aswanth Badvelu,

...PETITIONER

AND

$ Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶21

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.Chandra Shakhar Rao

¶22

! Counsel for Respondents: Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar

¶23

<Gist :

¶24

Head Note:

¶25

? Cases referred: 1. Civil Appeal No.8037 of 2022

¶26

(2018) 2 SCC 357 3. (2021) 2 SCC 309

¶27

(2004) 6 SCC 714

[3328]

APHC010049802023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶32

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶33

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 2467/2023

¶37

Between:

¶38

DR ASWANTH BADVELU, , HALL TICKET NO. 1571303, S/O B. MOHAN REDDY AGED 33 YEARS, PLOT NO. 29, PHASE-I, KAMALAPURI COLONY, SRINAGAR COLONY, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 073, TELANGANA STATE.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

DR Y S R UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, , REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶42

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, DR. Y.S.R. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶43

THE REGISTRAR, DR. Y.S.R. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶44

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, DR. Y.S.R. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶45

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶46

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in

¶47

¶48

the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner's case for fresh evaluation of his answer scripts in M.S. Orthopaedics Specialty as highly, arbitrarily, unjust, unauthorized and contrary to the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P. No. 32336/2022, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings No. E2(B)/PG/1066/CC/ May, 2022/ Exams dated 29.10.2022 of the 4th respondent and pass

¶49

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶50

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider petitioner's case for ordering fresh evaluation of his answer scripts of M.S. Orthopaedics in respect of the examinations conducted in the months of April / May 2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶52

1.G CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶54

1.GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR (SC FOR Dr YSR(presently NTR) HEALTH UNIVERSITY)

¶55

¶56

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶57

Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner; Sri S. Sriram, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents and Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. Y.S.R. (presently NTR) University of Health Sciences.

¶58

Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under :

¶59

“….to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner’s case for fresh evaluation of answer scripts in M.S. Orthopedics Speciality as highly, arbitrarily, unjust, unauthorized and contrary to the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P. No.32336/2022, apart from being violative

¶60

¶61

of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings No.E2(B)/PG/1066/CC/May, 2022/Exams dated 29.10.2022 of the 4^th respondent and pass such other order....”

¶62

Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner:

¶63

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ

¶64

Petitioner is prosecuting the Post Graduate Medical Course in M.S. Orthopedic Speciality in Shanthiram Medical College, Nandyal; that the college is affiliated to the Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences (Respondent No.1); that the Writ Petitioner is a M.S. Orthopedic PG Student, at the completion of the course, is required to appear in PG Medical examination consisting of four papers of 100 marks each; minimum pass mark being 40, the candidate is however required to get the aggregate of 200 marks out of 400 marks; that in the examinations conducted in April/May, 2022, the Petitioner, having appeared and having declared as failed with a thin deficit margin of 5 marks for the aggregate of 200 marks; that the answer scripts have not been evaluated properly; that the Writ Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.32336 of 2022; that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner was permitted to personally inspect the answer scripts; that when the answer scripts were personally inspected, the Writ Petitioner has noticed that there are lot of ‘examiners’ variations’ in respect of various papers written by the Writ Petitioner; that by an order dated 13.09.2022 the Writ Petition was disposed of with certain directions, thereby giving liberty to the students to submit representation to the University individually and that the University, after considering the such representations, to decide for re-

¶65

¶66

evaluation wherever it is necessary by using software adopted by the University as per the rules and regulations.

¶67

3.1. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Expert Committee, after verifying the answer scripts of the Writ Petitioner opined that there is no necessity for re-evaluation; that the Writ Petitioner has submitted one more representation on 11.12.2022 in detail pointing out the examiners’ variations in the matter of evaluation of answer scripts that necessitated ordering fresh re-evaluation; that the copy of the marks awarded by individual examiners against each question for all the four papers are also filed along with the present Writ Petition; that in Paper-III there is steep decrease in award of marks by the 4^th examiner qua 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd examiners; and that as per the examination scheme for PG Medical Courses, if a candidate fails even in one paper, he has to re-appear in all the four papers in the next examination; that in the event of the candidate passing the PG Course in the next examination, and such a step will have a bearing on the candidates who are seeking admission into Super Speciality Courses or employment either in Government or private sectors; that the examiners appointed by the 1^st respondent have not used the stylus for notation of marks/remarks; that the marks allotted by them to each answer to the each answer is in complete violation of the orders of various Courts; and, that a script marks report is attached to the answer sheet on which the marks are being indicated without making any remarks on the digital answer scripts.

¶68

¶69

Submissions of learned Advocate General for Respondents:

¶70

Sri Sriram, learned Advocate General submits that counter affidavit

¶71

is filed by Respondent No.1-University. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments in the counter affidavit. He would submit that the law with regard to the evaluation of the answer scripts is well settled in as much as the Courts ought not to show indulgence if there are no regulations providing for such re-evaluation. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh and others (Civil Appeal No.8037 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022). Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 8 to 9 of the above judgment of the Apex Court, and a portion of which is usefully extracted as under:

¶72

“8.1. In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand reevaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is observed and held as under:

¶73

“7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of anyprovision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in

¶74

¶75

considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543]. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant reevaluated.

¶76

8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.”

¶77

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at all justified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there was a need for reevaluation or not. As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answersheets and thereafter to order reevaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disapproved.”

¶78

¶79

4.1. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on paragraph 32 in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2021) 2 SCC 309.

¶80

ANALYSIS:

¶81

Having considered the above submissions and the precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the law is well settled that a candidate has no right to seek re-evaluation of the answer script. Even in the case of Pramod Kumar

¶82

Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors

¶83

: (2004) 6 SCC 714 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has noticed that under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. The said judgment has laid down that there is a provision for scrutiny only where the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by the candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in totalling of the marks for each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. In the said case, it has been stated categorically that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer book in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. As the Hon’ble Apex Court has already laid down the law that it is impermissible to issue a Writ of Mandamus for re-evaluation of the four answer scripts, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.

¶84

¶85