DUVVURU NITHYA REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 19.06.2026 Note: Issue CC today. B/o.KGM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.16057 of…
Judgment
Cause title
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 may be pleased to direct Respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider the objections already raised by the Petitioner to Q.No. 18 (Set C) of the Ophthalmology MCQ Paper, Third Professional MBBS Part-ll (NS) Examination, April 2026, along with the standard textbook evidence enclosed therewith, and to pass a reasoned speaking order thereon, before the conduct of the Ophthalmology Supplementary Examination scheduled on 02.07.2026, so that if the objection of the Petitioner is found to be valid, the Petitioner is not compelled to undergo the said Supplementary Examination on account of an error committed by the Respondents themselves pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 16057/2026
ORDER:-
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in releasing the final answer key for the examination conducted by them, more particularly with regard to Question No.18 (set C) of the Ophthalmology MCQ Paper, Third Professional MBBS Part-II (NS) Examinations, April, 2026, whereby the question relating to number of layers in the neurosensory retina. The petitioner has marked answer as Option(a)-“9”.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that some textbooks have recognized 10 layers in „neurosensory retina‟.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the textbooks prescribed for the petitioners, its only 9 layers. It is further submitted that, when there was a dispute with regard to the correct answer in the final key issued by the respondents, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1811 of 2026, directed the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioners therein and to get the papers verified by a different set of examiners for awarding of marks.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondents to send the subject exam papers of the petitioner to different set of examiners for awarding marks for the answers submitted by the petitioners and for reconsideration of the correct answer marked by the petitioners insofar the question referred to above. The interim process shall be completed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 19.06.2026 Note: Issue CC today. B/o.KGM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.16057 of 2026 Dated 19.06.2026 KGM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 19 Jun 2026. The bench was HARINATH N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.