Mogili Kinnera v. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri Barkatlal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner herein is 1"t year MBBS student. She has appeared Human Anatomy examination held in the month of November, 2024. She expected more than 60% marks in each paper. But, she got 33 marks in Human Anatomy paper-l and 35 marks in Human Anatomy paper-Il out of 1OO marks in Human Anatomy. Results were declared on 12.I2.2024. Therefore, she has submitted a representation, dated 13.72.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to permit her to re-verify ( KL,J W.P.No. 1O3l of 2025 2 the said papers. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said application, respondent No.2 did not act upon the SAINC

3. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No'2, petitioner filed W.P.No.36O69 of 2024- Vide order dated

24.12.2024, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee appointed by respondent No'2 by paying Rs. 1,OOO/- per each paper with a request to permit her to go through and verify the answer sheets in respect of Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy subject and on submitting such representation and payrnent of fee, this Court directed the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to go through the aforesajd papers for the purpose of re-vivification and re-totaling of marks, etc. In compliance with the said order, petitioner has

4. submitted a representation dated 28. L2.2O24 to the respondents. But the respondents deferred the matter to KL,.' W.P.No. i031 of 2025

02.01.2025. On O2.O1.2O25, respondent No.2 failcd to permit the petitioner to re-verify and note down the discrepancies in the arrswer sheets, due to procedural restrictions. Despite identifying grave errors and omissions in the evaluation, respondents refused to re- evaluate or correct the marks, citing lack of authority.

5. It is contended by petitioner that the evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the answers and committed procedural lapses. The same is evident from the marks awarded by the evaluators by summoning Papers-I and II answer scripts of Human Anatomy subject to verify the evaluation errors and procedural irregularities.

6. It is further contended by the petitioner that she has written accurate answers including diagrams wherever necessa-ry. Even then, she has observed signilicant discrepancies in the evaluation. She has also mentioned marks awarded by the eva,luators in respect of said Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy subject. The KL.J W.P.No.1031 of 2025 .+ sarne is without anv basis. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not correctly revaluating the petitioner's marks awarded in Papers-l and II of Human Anatomy subject supplementary examination held in November,2024, as illega,t and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to re-eva,luate answer scripts of Papers-I and II of Humal Anatomy subject in the presence of petitioner and a senior Medical Officer.

7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter contending that respondents are conducting digital valuation since inception of respondent No.2 - University and the said process of digita,l valuation has been upheld by this Court. Each answer sheet undergoes two independent valuations conducted by two different examiners and in case of difference in award of more than 15olo marks between lirst arnd second evaluations, third evaluation is being conducted and final score will be determined averaging the evaluation and rounding off to the next KL.J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025 l higher figure. Therefore, digitai valuation is transparent and following the Competency Based Medica_l Education Curriculum (CBMtr) guidelines. In subjects that have two papers, a candidate must secure minimum 4O%o of ma-rks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass in the said subject.

8. The evaluation of answer scripts is being done by faculty members, who are eligible to be appointed as Under Graduate examiners, in accordance with NMC Regulations. Marks awarded by the evaluators and their judgment cannot be questioned.

9. Petitioner has secured only 31.5% marks in theory in Human Anatomy, which is less than minimum of 4O% marks required in the final examination in theory. Therefore, she has been declared as failed in accordance with the prevalent NMC Regulations.

10. It is further contended that petitioner could not secure minimum ma-rks of 4Ooh to be considered along with practical marks to obtain minimum of 50% for KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025 6 passing in the subject. Petitioner after two attempts could not passed in Human Anatomy subject attributing the wrong evaluation of the answer scripts without any basis. The pass percentage of I-year MBBS is about more than 9O%o. The petitioner has to work hard and study to improve her knowledge to pass in the examination without blaming the evaluation process. The examiners have been appointed, in accordance with NMC Regulations with the required experience of teaching. The digital valuation procedure as detailed above clearly indicates that none of the examiners will be aware of the identity of the student whose answer script 1S being eva-luatecl. Therelore, petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of the aforesaid papers in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Oflicer. I 1. It is further contended that since the difference between 1., arrd 2"d evaluation in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II is more than 15%, the sarne was referred to 3.,r evaluator, who awarded 23.5 marks out of KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2O25 7 ! 1OO, which was rounded off to 24. Therefore, there is no error in evaluation. There is no provision in the Rules of respondent No.2 - Universit5z for re-evaluation. Moreover, petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of the aforesaid papers as a matter of right in routine course. With the aforesaid submissions, respondents sought to dismiss the present Writ Petition. L2. As discussed supra, petitioner IS seeking re- evaluation of Human Anatomy Papers-I and II of her I-year MBBS. Admittedly, there is no provision in the Rules of respondent No.2 for conducting of revolution.

13. However, re-evaluation of alswer scripts is no more res integra. L4. This Court in Dr.Sreekar Amarqvodi u. State of Telanganal relging on the guidelines issued in Dr. Kishore Kurnar a. State oJ A.P.2, Sanjog Singh a. U.P. Public Serttice Commissions, President, Boord of | 202'2 C Online TS 2972 , (20 t6) Al-T 408 ' (2007) 3 SCC 720 KL,J W.P.No.l031 of 2025 8 Secondary Education o. D. Suvankana, CBSE u. Aditga BandopadhgagP, Dr. NtR Unilwsitg of Health Sciences a. Yerra Trinadh6, Ran Viiag Singh o- State of (t.P.7, Pramod Kutna.r Sriaastoua a. Chainnan, Bihar hftlic Seruice Cornmissions, the Secretary, All India Pr e - Me dic aVP re' De ntal Examinqtion, C. B. S. E, a. Khushboo Shriaastauae, Bihar Staff Selection Cotnmission u. Arun Kumarlo, Jagdeo u. State of Maharastrall, Indo Suriss Time Ltd. V. Umqraol2 and Magank Garg u. Delhi High Courtl3, this Court held that student is entitled to verify or view the answer scripts. But student is not entitled to seek information with regard to the sarne under RTI Act, 2005.

15. This Court also considered the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the 4 {2OO7l I SCC 603 s (2o 1 l) 8 scc 497 6 2022 SCC Online SC l52O 7 (20t8l 2 SCC 357 I {2OO4l 6 SCC 714 e {2ot4l t4 scc 523 ro 12o2o 6 scc 362 I ' (2006) 2 Mah L) 497 D AIR198I P&H 213 tt 120221 5 HCC (Del) 483 / KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025 9 aforesaid decisions that there is conflict between the decisions in Run Viiag Singh (supra) ald Yerta Trinardh (supra). The principles laid down in Yerrq Trinadh (supra) prohibits re-evaluation of answer scripts completely and does not confer any discretion on the High Courts to order re-eva,luation. When there is conflict between decisions of two Benches, this Court has to follow one, which in its view expresses the correct decision of law. Thus, this Court held that there is no conflict between the decisions of Run Viiag Singh (supra) and. Yerta Trinadh (supra). The decision in Yerrq Trinadh (supra) deprecated the practice of High Courts in ordering re-evaluation of answer scripts as a matter of routine. The said decision cannot be interpreted to mean that High Courts have no power to order re- evaluation of answer scripts in the absence o[ rules permitting the same. A harmonious construction of the findings of both the decisions clearly indicates that in KL,J W.P.No. 103 i of 2O25 l0 rzrre and exceptional cases, the High Court can order re- evaluation of answer scripts

16. Thus, this Court held that only in exceptional cases, this Court can order re-evaluation of answer scripts even when the Rules are silent. \7. In Sahiti and others us Chancellor, IgfR Uniuersitg of Health Science and othersta, a Lhree Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex court held that re- evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. However, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority IS arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority. Thus, in the absence of Rules, this Court cal order re-evaluation of answer scripts, but only in exceptional and rare cases. '- {zooh qcc s,ro a KL,J W.P.No. 1031 ot 2025 II

18. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, coming to I the facts of the case on hand, it is relevant to note that the petitioner herein is prosecuting her I-year MBBS in CMR Institute of Medicat College, Kandlakoya. She has appeared for l-Year MBBS supplementar;r examination conducted by respondent No.2 - UniversitSr in November, 2024. She has secured 3l marks out of 1O0 marks (A- evaluator) and 34 marks out of l0O marks (B-evaluator) with regard to Human Anatomy paper-I. Her average score is 33 out of IOO marks.

19. With regard to Human Anatomy paper-Il, she has secured 35 marks out of 100 marks (A-evaluator) and 2l marks out of 100 marks (B-evaluator). Since the difference is more than 15% between the marks awarded by two evaluators, her Human Anatomy paper-Il was evaluated by J.a evaluator (C-evaluator), who in turn awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks. The same is rounded off to 24 marks. Thus, she has secured 30 marks outrof 1OO marks. Considering the said aspects, a KL,J W.P.No- lO3r of 2025 12 rnore particularly, the difference between the marks awarded by A-evaluator and B-evaluator and as per the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Aditga Bandopadhgag, aide order dated 24.12.2024 in W.P.No.36069 of 2024, this Court granted iiberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2 by way of submitting a representation and also paying an amount of Rs. 1000/- per each paper with a request to verify the answer scripts and re-tota_l the same. This Court a.lso directed the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to go through the aforesaid two (2) papers for the purpose of re-verification and re-totaling of marks. Accordingly, petitioner was permitted to re-veri$/ the answer scripts in respect of Papers-I and II of Human Anatomy I-year MBBS and re-totaling. She has mentioned the marks secured by her in respect of the aforesaid two papers in a Tabular form in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the writ affidavit. KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025

20. However, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 did not permit her to note the discrepancies in the answer sheets citing procedural restrictions. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there are grave errors and omissions in the evaluation. She specifically asserted that evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the answers and committed procedural lapses, as evident in the marks awarded. Therefore, she sought for summoning of Human Anatomy Papers-l and II answer scripts, which will be helpful to this Court to verify the eva,luation errors and procedural irregularities. 2L. In the light of the said submission, vide order dated

27.OL.2O25, this Court directed Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to furnish the marks awarded by the 3.d evaluator question wise in respect of Human Anatomy paper-Il in a sealed cover. He has produced answer scripts of petitioner in respect of both the papers i.e., Papers-l and II of Human Anatomy Subject including marks awarded KL,J W.P.No.lO3L of 2025 I.1 by 1",, 2"d artd 3.d eva_l.uators in a sealed cover, This Court perused the same.

22. There is no dispute that 1"r evaluator has awarded 31 ma-rks out of 1O0 marks and, 2"d evaluator has awarded 34 marks out of 1OO marks to the petitioner in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-I. Average comes to 33 marks out of 100 marks. The difference between l"t and 2"4 eva-luator is only 3 marks. It is not more than lsoh to evaluate the said paper by a 3.a evaluator.

23. In respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II, l"r evaluator has awarded 35 marks out of 10O marks, 2"d evaluator has awarded 21 marks out of 1OO marks. There is difference of more than 15% in the marks awzrrded by both eva-luators. The difference is 14 marks. Therefore, the said paper was eva_luated by 3.a evaluator. The said answer scripts was referred to 3.d evaluator for the pulpose of evaluation by respondent No.2 - University as per Rules. The 3'a evaluator has awarded 23.5 marks out of IOO marks to the petitioner herein and the sarne was (t l5 KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2O25 rounded off to 24 marks. Therefore, the average is 30 marks out of 1OO.

24. Therefore, there is no violation of procedure or Rule by respondent No.2 - University in evaluating answer scripts of the petitioner.

25. With regard to evaluation, it is apt to note that it is a skilled job, it requires expertise and qualification to the evaluators. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that eva-luators have been appointed by respondent No.2 - University, in accordance with the NMC Regulations with required experience o[ teaching' They are adopting digital eva-luation procedure as per the guidelines issued by the NMC. Therefore, as per the said procedure none of the examiners shall be aware of the id.entity of the students, whose answer sheets is being evaluated. Respondents have specifically contended that they are following the guidelines issued by the NMC and also Competency Based Medicat Education Curriculum (CBMC) including its notification dated Ol'O8'2023' I KL,J W.P.No. 1O3l of 2025 t6 guidelines, dated O1 .O8.2023 and its Corrigendum, dated ot.o9.2023

26. As per the said guidelines, the subjects that have two papers, the student must secure minimum 4O"h of marks in aggregate (both papers together) to pass in the said subject. The criteria for passing in a subject 1S candidate shall obtain 507o marks in aggregate and 60:40 (minimum) or 40:60 (minimum) in University conducted examination separately 1n Theory and in Practical (practical includes: practical/ clinica-l and viva voce) order to be declared and passed in that subject.

27. It is apt to note that there is no challenge to the Rules and Procedure adopted by respondent No.2 with regard to evaluation of answer scripts 2A. It is contended by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that petitioner was admitted in to MBBS Course in the year 2023-24 in NRI category under Management Quota in CMR Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner has secured 154 marks out of 72O marks and a NEET-UG KL'J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025 L1 rank of 'g,18,2O3'. Petitioner could not get seat under Competent Authority Quota, secured very low marks and low rank in NEET-UG -2023. Petitioner has appeared in I- year MBBS Regular exarnination conducted in August, 2024 and failed in all three subjects i'e', Human Anatomy, Biochemistry and Physiologl, she got 35, 52 and 76 marks out of 20O marks respectively in all the aforesaid 3 subjects. Thus, she has secured 17 'Soh in Human Anatomy, 26% in Physiologr and 3Ao/o in Biochemistry in theory failing by a gross margin of marks. The least marks were secured in Human Anatomy. Therefore, petitioner has appeared supplementarlr examination conducted in Novemtler' 2024 arld passed in Biochemistry and Physiolory' She faited in Human AnatomY subject. 1S

29. As discussed supra, Petitioner evaluation of her answer scripts in respect of Human Anatomy Papers-I and II in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Officer on the ground that seeking re- KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2O2S' r t8 evaluators did not apply their minds while assessing the arlswers and committed procedural lapses, which is evident from the ma,rks awarded by them. There is difference of 14 marks in the marks awarded by 1", eva_luator and 2"d evaluator in respect of Human Anatomy Subject Paper-II. 3.d evaluator is awarded 23.5 marks, which is rounded off to 24 marks. 30' As discussed supra, petitioner herein calnot seek re-evaluation as a matter of right in a routine course. This Court can order for re_evaluation in rare cases and exceptional cases. petitioner has to make out that her case is rare and exceptional case.

31. The Honble Apex Court in Sahithi (supra) held that evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authorit5r is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes ar-ry statutory or binding rule or ordinatnce KL.J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025 l9 and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authori[r.

32. In Dr.Srilcar Amarauq.di (supra), this Court held that in rear and exceptional cases this Court can order re-evaluation of answer scripts even when the Rules are sile nt.

33. As discussed supra, in the present case petitioner is seeking re-evaluation of the arlswer scripts in her presence and also in the presence of a senior Medica_l Officer only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the answer scripts since the evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the arlswer sheets and committed procedural lapses. The only basis for the said allegation of the petitioner is the difference between marks awarded by 1", evaluator and 2nd evaluator in respect of Human Anatomy Paper-II. With regard to Paper-I, the difference is only 3 rnarks and the average is 337o out of 100 marks. With regard to Human Anatomy \ KL,J W.P.No. 1031 of 2025 l0 Paper-ll, 3'd evaluator has awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks and the same is rounded off to 24.

34. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no procedural irregularity committed by eva-luators. Petitioner cannot seek re-evaluation of the aforesaid papers in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Oflicer on the aforesaid grounds.

34. It is relevant to note that considering the said submissions this Court directed 2nd and 3'd respondents to produce the said answer sheets. They have produced the aforesaid answer sheets in a sealed covers. This Court perused the same. There is no discrepancy and procedural lapses. However, this Court cannot come to a conclusion and give a finding that evaluators did not awarded marks properly.

35. At the cost ol repetition, as discussed supra, in Human Anatomy Subject Paper-ll the difference between the marks awarded by l"t and 2nd evaluator is 14. Therefore, the same was evaluated by J'a evaluator, who I ,| KL,.J W.P.No.103l of 2025 2l awarded 23.5 marks out of 100 marks, which was rounded off to 24 marks. The average is 30 out of 100 marks. Therefore, the petitioner carnot allege that there is violation o[ procedure and that there are discrepancies in the answer scripts. Petitioner also cannot a1lege that evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the marks. As discussed supra, evaluation is a skilled job and it requires expertise. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that they are evaluating the answer scripts digitally and none of the examiners will be aware of the identity of the students whose answer scripts is being evaluated.

36. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present case of the petitioner is not a rear or exceptiona-l case to order for re-evaluation in her presence and in the presence of a senior Medical Officer as sought by the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought in the present writ and it is liable to be dismissed. l ( KL,J W.P.No. 103 I of 2025 22

37. Accordingly, this Wirt Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

38. Registry is directed to return the answer scripts to Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in a sealed cover under due acknowledgement. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. \ o, ,TRUE COPY// SD/- T.VIJAY KUMAR T REGISTRAR ASSIST ON OFFICER

1. The Registrar Judicial-|, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI T.SHARATH, SC FOR KNRUHS tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MFDTCAL HEALTH FW, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies BSR % I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0510212025 CC TODAY HE STA re \-u ( q 'J 0 5 FiB 2$25 7_ .L I \.ss#, ORDER WP.No.1031 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a 0b