Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gade Srikavya, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August, 2021

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                        Writ Petition No.14994 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the

petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of her answer scripts of (i) ENT

(ii) Opthalmology and (iii) SPM (Community Medicine) subjects of

MBBS final year Part-I exam held in March/April 2021 and June 2021

(Hall Ticket No.15079034).

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for final year MBBS Part-I examination

held in March/April 2021 and June 2021 with Hall Ticket

No.15079034. The examination was conducted by 2nd respondent

University. However, there was a large scale violation of the

regulation passed by the Executive Council for digital evaluation of

answer scripts. In the results announced by 2nd respondent University,

the petitioner got failed in three subjects i.e., ENT, Opthalmology and

SPM (Community Medicine). She was awarded 15/25 minimum

required marks, 15/25 marks and 59/65 marks in ENT, Opthalmology

and SPM (Community Medicine) theory subjects respectively. It is

submitted that though the petitioner wrote the examinations in March

2021, but due to some technical reasons the 2nd respondent cancelled

the theory exam in the subject of SPM (Community Medicine) which

was held on 22.03.2021 and re-conducted the same on 10.06.2021 and

declared the results of all the three subjects of Final MBBS Part-1 on

21.06.2021. Immediately the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent

University by submitting an application for re-totaling of SPM

(Community Medicine) subject and in the re-totaling also, there was

no change in the result. It is contended that the petitioner is in doubt

that any mistake might have occurred while 2nd respondent university

in digitally evaluating her answer scripts by the examiners, because

there is probability of omissions and commissions which would have

resulted in improper valuation of her answer sheets. On 12.07.2021,

the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent University and submitted

an application under the RTI Act to permit her for physical verification

of her answer scripts. After personal verification on 24.07.2021, it was

found that there were no marks or remarks to show that her answer

script was evaluated. Though the 2nd respondent University has

adapted digital evaluation, there were no signs of usage of the digital

tools to show that her answer scripts were corrected or evaluated. It is

further contended that though the petitioner has written the

examination well, but she was declared as "failed" in final MBBS

Part-I theory subjects with a thinner margin of pass marks because of

improper evaluation done by 2nd respondent university without

following earlier judgments of this Court. The petitioner apprehends

that there was a gross irregularity in the evaluation of the answer

scripts of the candidates. The petitioner came to know that the students

of her ilk have filed batch of writ petitions and they were allowed and

High Court of A.P. passed orders for re-evaluation in terms of the

guidelines issued for digital evaluation of the answer scripts.

Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition

inter alia contending thus:

The petitioner has taken examination for final MBBS Part-I held

in March/April 2021 and the results were pronounced in June 2021 and

she was declared as failed in three subjects i.e., ENT, Opthalmology &

SPM. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-totaling in the subject of

SPM and after re-totaling there was no change in the result and the

same was placed in the University website on 14.07.2021. The

petitioner attended for personal verification of her answer scripts on

24.07.2021. After verification, she acknowledged that her answer

scripts were valued by the examiners, vide acknowledgement dated

24.07.2021. The marks were evaluated as per the MCI norms and

guidelines. The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned counsel for petitioner, and

Sri G.Vijay Kumar, Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.

5. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is

that the answer sheets of the petitioner were not at all evaluated by the

examiners which is writ large from the fact that in spite of the 2nd

respondent/University providing them technical tools for evaluation like

stylus marks, tick marks, 'X' marks and providing training through

M/s.Globarena Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad in digital

evaluation of the answer sheets, no such marks or comments were

mentioned on the answer sheet by the concerned examiners. Learned

counsel would vehemently contend that expect mentioning the marks

in a separate 'Script Marks Report', the examiners have not mentioned

any relevant comments or put tick marks on the digital answer scripts.

Therefore, the answer sheets were not evaluated at all. He relied upon

the decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

[2016 (6) ALT 408] wherein this Court deprecated the action of the

examiners in not placing any remarks on the digital answer sheets

relating to PG Medical examination and observed that it would amount to

non-evaluation and directed the 2nd respondent/University to re-evaluate

the answer sheets. Learned counsel sought for similar order in this case.

6. In oppugnation, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent

would argue that for a fair and transparent evaluation, digital evaluation

was introduced whereby answer scripts will be evaluated by four

examiners independently and the marks awarded by them will be clubbed

and average marks will be taken, basing on which, results will be

announced. He would submit that the services of M/s.Globarena

Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad were engaged to provide

technical assistance and training to the examiners in evaluating the

answer scripts. Further, the said agency has provided tools for making

remarks on the answer sheets. The stylus tool will assist the examiners to

mention (√) marks or 'X' marks, underlines or comments etc., on the

answer sheets. However, such mentioning of the remarks on the digital

answer scripts is purely the discretion of the concerned examiners, but

not a mandatory rule of the University. Therefore, mere non-mentioning

of the remarks on the answer scripts cannot be treated as non-evaluation

of the answer scripts at all. After the evaluation, the examiners shall

indicate the marks awarded to each question on separate sheet called

'Script Marks Report'. Learned counsel would further admit that in this

case re-totaling in the subject of SPM was done at the request of the

petitioner. Learned counsel, however, fairly admitted that in the re-

evaluation sheet also there were no evaluation symbols. He thus prayed

to dismiss the writ petition, since the petitioner failed after the re-

evaluation also.

7. The point for consideration is whether the examiners have

scrupulously followed the guidelines of the University as well as the

observations made in the earlier decisions in the process of evaluation of

the answer sheets of the petitioner and if not, whether the writ petition

deserved to be allowed?

8. Point: It should be noted that today on the direction of this Court,

the Controller of Examinations and Technicians, who are conversant with

the digital evaluation of the answer scripts, appeared in person before this

Court along with Memorandum of marks.

On perusal of the answer script, it must be said, they do not contain

the marks like (√) mark, 'X' mark, underlines or any other digital

remarks. Even the marks granted to each question were also not

mentioned on the answer sheets, but they were appended on a separate

sheet. It is no doubt that the Standing Counsel would argue that the

digital tools such as Wacom, stylus, etc., were provided to the examiners

only to enable them to mention the digital remarks at their discretion, but

however, no direction was given to them to invariably mention the

remarks on the answer sheet. However, this argument does not hold

water in view of the earlier decision in Dr. P.Kishore Kumar's case (1

supra), wherein it was observed thus:

26. A careful scrutiny of the above excerpts discloses that except entering marks in the sheet appended on the top of an answer script, there is no trace of evaluation of answer sheet. (Emphasis supplied).

27. The reply of 2nd respondent in this behalf is that all the Examiners have done online valuation and the marks scored or comments are entered in Script Marks Report. This reply does not satisfy the requirement of evaluation of answer scripts. (See Aditya Bandopadya's case MANU/SC/0932/2011: (2011) 8 SCC 497 (supra)).

28. xxx It is admitted that in the answer sheets produced in the batch of cases, the scanned answer scripts do not bear the evaluation marks/remarks of Examiners or the marks allotted by the Examiner to each question. It is not clear whether on account of oral instructions issued by 2nd respondent not to write on the scanned answer scripts, a few of the Examiners have not shown their evaluation. But an answer sheet with online correction i.e., remarks of Examiner with the available software is produced. The possibility of just filling up the Script Marks Report, even if done (this Court is not doubting the bona fides of Examiners), facility for verification, evaluation with compatible technology must be put in place or used by the Examiners. But the marks have been entered in Script Marks Report. Normally, the presumption is marks are allotted on evaluation. The primary evidence to discharge onus of evaluation is by relying on evaluated answers scripts, and not the data entered on a separate Script Marks Report.

xxxx

30. The online evaluation as illustrated above when is pointed out to the representative of service provider, the representative has fairly admitted that the scanned answer sheets produced in the batch of cases show no trace of evaluation by the Examiners. It is pertinent to remark that the utilization of available technology such as Abode, PDF format, Wacom, Stylus etc., would have certainly helped the University to achieve the objectives which it wanted to achieve by online evaluation. Use of available tools could have furnished complete, accurate and reliable Diagnostic Reports. At this juncture, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadyaya's case MANU/SC/0932/2011 : (2011) 8 SCC 497 (supra) is taken note of. The clinical examination of a patient is the preferred option of Doctors. However, of late, more and

more Diagnostic Reports are preferred for accuracy. The accomplishment of accuracy of a Diagnostic Report is possible with tools and technicians.

xxxx

33. Hence, the summary and conclusions are as follows:

"(a) the online evaluation of answer scripts for the examinations held in May/June, 2016 according to the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in para 2 of the counter-affidavit is in continuation of a pilot project introduced in October, 2015 and requires updating tools and skills of Examiners.

(b) The expertise and technical compatibility of Examiners at respective centres is a matter required to be re-examined by the University and compatibility is archived by undertaking demo classes.

(c) Consistency in the evaluation i.e., writing remarks by the Examiner on the scanned/answer scripts could not be shown in the answer sheets. Hence, keeping in perspective the technology uniform written instructions to Examiners could be issued.

(d) The legitimate expectation of a student is that the answers written are at least looked at and appreciated for evaluation. In the case on hand, with the illustration given above, this Court is of the view that Script Answers Reports are treated as evaluation of answer scripts and no material is placed to satisfy that the evaluation of answer scripts, in fact, had taken place and Script Marks Report is the summary of such evaluation."(Emphasis supplied).

This Court categorically observed that the utilization of the available

technology such as Adobe, PDF, Wacom, Stylus etc., would have

certainly helped the University to achieve the objectives which it wanted

to achieve by online evaluation. More precisely, this Court observed that

the use of available tools would have furnished complete, actual, reliable

and diagnostic reports. This court thus categorically held that it is the

legitimate expectation of the students that the answers written are atleast

looked at and appreciated for evaluation and in the case on hand, the

script answer reports are treated as evaluation of answer scripts and no

material is placed to satisfy that the evaluation of answer scripts, in fact,

had taken place and script marks report is summary of such evaluation.

9. Needlesss to emphasize the above judgment applies with all fours