The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that ordering re-evaluation by a third examiner, as was done in the present case by the learned single Judge, would be a direction contrary to the statutory position, which does not at all permit re-evaluation by a third examiner except in a case where the variation between the marks awarded by the first two examiners exceeds 20%.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was admitted to the MBBS course in the year 2018 and she failed in the subject of General Medicine when she appeared in the final year MBBS examination. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for the recounting of the marks, however, there was no change in her result. Then, she applied for the verification.
The learned single Judge, upon physical verification of the answer scripts of the petitioner, ordered the evaluation of the answer scripts by a third evaluator notwithstanding the fact that the difference in the marks between the marks allotted by the two evaluators was less than 20%. The present appeal is filed in order to challenge the judgment passed by the learned single judge.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that even the answer scripts that we reviewed show that all of the questions include the annotations that the procedure requires the examiners to follow on each question. Therefore, the examiners did not overlook any particular response to a question in this instance.
It was furthermore observed that the statutory position, which prohibits re-evaluation by a third examiner except in situations where there is a 20% difference in the marks awarded by the first two examiners, would be violated if a third examiner were ordered to reevaluate the case, as the learned single judge did in this instance. For this, the reliance was placed on Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinath and others.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the judgment passed by the learned single judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the appeal.
Case Title: Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences Vs National Medical Commission
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO: 877 OF 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Sri. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Corpus Juris Law Panel LLP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
