The High Court · 2025

Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstilnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the oider pirssed in W.P.No.1031 of 2025, DI 05.02.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judg,: pending dtsposal of the above WA in the inte'est of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondent ?!o.1: SRI R. NAGARJUNA REDDY AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI T. SHARATH SC FOR KNRUHS The Court rnade the following: JUDGMENI ,i- J d.{ ;t' THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JuSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.195 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice $tjog Paul) Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, for respondent No. 1; and Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloj i Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as, "the University"), for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. With the consent, hnaliy heard.

3. The challenge in this writ appeal is mounted to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.103 I of 2025, dated

05.o2.2025.

4. The appellant (writ petitioner) approached the writ Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not correctly revaluating her marks awarded \ e{' ,- a TI I 2 -l , in Human Anietomy (Paper I and II) in the First -\Iear MBBS Supplement:rry trxaminations held in November, 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits th at a plain reading of the :marks given to the appellalt by the firtit evaluator and the second evaluator in Human Anatomy (Paper ll) will show that there is a vast difference in the evaluation. A reference is made to the fclloning marks: B. HUMAN ANATOMY PAPER-II E.valuation- 1 Evaluation-2 1 1)81 15 t2)e it5 11)1.s/ 1s r2lt .s l 1s

6. Considering this discrepancy, which is enormousr in nature, the aforesaid rvrit petition was filed.

7. It is argured that, in the counter affidavit, it was not disclosed that aly third evaluator has examined the answer sheets and given any other set of marks. The learned Single Judge considered the record and passed the impugned order, which runs contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh v. I , J U.P.Public Service Commission, Nlahabadr. The third evaluator has given random marks instead of revaluating each answer of the appellant.

8. Sounding a contra note, learned Standing Counsel for the University has produced the minutes of the meeting of Board of Studies of Common MBBS held on 22.01.2020 and placed heavy reliance on Clause VII, which is reproduced thus: "VII. INTRODUCTION OF SCHtrME OF EVALUATION _ Approued F If is resolued that Digital ualuation of the question papers is approued. Double ualuotion is mandatory. Discrepancg in tuto ualuations of more than 15%.o is sent for third ualuotion. If no discrepancg then tLe ouerage marks obtained in double ualuation is taken as final. In case of more than 15% uariotion the third eualuator's mark nearer to the original eualuator is taken into consideration and an aueroge of the oiginal and tlqe third eualuotions is done. Auerage of Three oaluations is to be taken. It is approaed bg the Members oJ Common MBBS BOS. > All the Dxanniners oJ deputed .for Digito.l eaalua:tion ccn discass and set gtldelines for that subject for aaluation before start o:f elto.ludtlon at dig ital oaluatio n cent r e. " 9 On this strength, it is submitted that the third evaluator, in accordance with this decision, evaluated the answer sheets in I lzoou y : scc zzo ,I I I I l 4 question and €iave the marks to the appellant. The average of marks given by the first and third evaluators became the ultimate marks.

10. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated abor.e ald no other point is pressed.

11. We have treard the parties at length and perused l.he record.

12. The lea::ned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has recorded as un<ler {-: '34. lt is, relevant to note that considering the said submissi,-.rns this Court directed 2"d and 3.d respond ents to producc the said answer sheets. They have produr;ed the aforesaid answer sheets in a sealed covers. This Court perused tLre same. There is no discrepancy and pro,:edural lapses- Ho.*rever, this Court cannot come to a conclusion and give a firLding that evaluators did not awarded marks properh,.

35. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, in Human A.natomy Subject Paper-II the difference betrv,ien the marks aura rded by l"t and 2.d evaluator is 14. Therefore, the same was evaluated by 3.d evaluator, who awarded 23.5 marks ou1. of 1OO marks, which was rounded off to 24 marks. The average is 30 out of 1OO marks. Therefcrre, the petitioner' :annot allege that there is violation of procedure and that there are discrepancies in the answer scripts. Petitioner also cannot allege that evaluators did not apply their mind while assessing the marks. As discussed supra, evaluation is a skilied job and it requires expertise. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that th,:y are evaluatinq the answer scripts digitally and none of the examiners will be aware of the identity of the students whose answer scripts is being evaluated. 'B* :4.,: .,,9*d!. ,L 5

36. -'In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present case of the petitioner is not a rear or exceptional 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. 37 . Accordingly, this Wirt Petition is dismissed. There shail 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 ald 3 in a sealed cover under due acknowledgement."

13. A plain -reading of the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge shows that the answer sheets were produced in a sealed cover before the learned Single Judge, who has perused the same and opined that the third evaluator granted certain marks to the appellant. Thus, it cannot be doubted that the third evaluator has undertaken the said exercise. Apart from making a bald allegation in the writ appeal that the third evaluator has done it on random basis and not actually revaluated the answer sheets, there is no material to substantiate the same.

14. The evaluation of answer sheets is in the domain of experts. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority or an expert to take a different view. The learned Single Judge has given-a I'rnding 1 xr. &-;x"- 6 a) that there is no flaw in the decision making process. We find substance in ,:tre said finding if tested on the anvil of Clause VII of the minutes of the meeting of Board of Studies of Common MBBS held on 22.OL2).O2O reproduced hereinabove.

15. In the absence of any flaw in the decisibn making process and the decisic,n which is in consonance with the mirLutes of the meeting of l3oard of Studies of Common MBBfi held on

22.01 .2020 , no interference is warranted.

16. So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) 1S concerned, it deals with the aspect of examlner variability". The Supreme Court opined that some procedure should fs 2d6rpted to reduce "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability". 'I'he respondents have adopted such method of decision, datr:-cl 22.O1.2O2O, and pursuant to that. the third evaluator gave the marks to the appellant. Thus, no filult can be found in the irnpugned order. 17 . The r.vrit appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. lrlo order as to costs. .''-!.\*'. I ... **j \ 7 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-I. NAGA LAKSHMI UTY REGIS CTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. BANKATLAL MANDHANI Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI T SHARATH SC FOR KNRUHS IOPUC] 3.TwoCCstoGPFoRMEDICALHEALTHFW'HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies KKS BS *4.-ir, HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 JUDGMENT WA.No,'|95 of 2025 .:ii3: J j4,.. A. o.ir. ( 2A rAn 2025 ( Jc o

6.( ) !) }" <:r: ,Tl:uel I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 4..< / z,/J/.{,, -- A4 1r