Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vaddi Dwaraka Vamsi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 September, 2021

Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                         Writ Petition No.17670 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring that the

petitioner deserves for re-evaluation of his answer scripts of Anatomy,

Physiology and Biochemistry subjects of 1st year MBBS exam held in

April 2021.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

The petitioner appeared for First Year MBBS supplementary

examination held in April 2021. 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 Anatomy,

Physiology and Biochemistry subjects. Immediately he made an

application dated 28.06.2021 under the RTI Act by paying requisite

fee. The 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 28.07.2021 directing the

petitioner to attend personally before 3rd respondent for verification of

answer scripts on 07.08.2021. On personal verification, it was found

that two evaluators corrected each answer script but marks were not

awarded against each question.

It is submitted that in Anatomy Paper-I the petitioner was

awarded 46/100 marks by 1st evaluator and was awarded 50/100 marks

by 2nd evaluator, whereas in Anatomy Paper-II he was awarded 42.5

marks and 33 marks by respective examiners. In respect of

Biochemistry Paper-I, he was awarded 48 and 50.5 marks, and in

Paper-II he was awarded 50 and 33 marks by respective examiners. In

respect of Physiology Paper-I, he was awarded 51 and 28 marks,

whereas in Paper-II he awarded 43 and 64.5 marks by respective

examiners. It is submitted that since difference is more than 20% it

was evaluated by 3rd examiner, who was awarded 33 marks. It is

contended that marks provided in the marks list were different from

the marks noted by petitioner at the time of physical verification. It is

further contended that the petitioner is in doubt that any mistake might

have crept in while 2nd respondent university in digitally evaluating his

answer scripts by the examiners because there is every likelihood of

committing mistakes while decoding, scanning, uploading and

downloading the answer scripts, which would have resulted in

improper valuation of his answer sheets. 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 his 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 MBBS First Year in

April 2021 and the results were pronounced in June 2021 and he was

declared as failed in three subjects i.e., Human Anatomy, Physiology

and Biochemistry. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for re-totaling

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

was placed in the University website on 27.07.2021. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has made an application dated 01.07.2021

under the RTI Act and requested for verification of his answer scripts

and was permitted for personal verification of answer scripts on

07.08.2021. The petitioner attended for personal verification of his

answer scripts on 07.08.2021. After verification, he acknowledged that

his answer scripts were valued by the examiners, vide

acknowledgement dated 07.08.2021. The marks were evaluated as per

the MCI norms and guidelines. The respondents thus prayed to

dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Ms. Maanasa Kanneganti, 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 retotalling 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