Vasireddy Harshitha Choudhary vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4854 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

  WRIT PETITION Nos.34520, 33525, 34368 AND 35355 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER:

         The lis involved in all the four writ petitions is one and the same

they are being heard together and decided by way of following common

order.

         2. Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, Sri M.Pratheek Reddy and Sri

V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri

A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondents. Perused the

record.

3. In all the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking

revaluation of their answer scripts. The details of the subjects and papers

are mentioned below:-

Sl.        WP       Name of the petitioner/s          Subject(s)    Paper(s)
No        Number
1        34520/22 Saddi Rushika Reddy             Bio Chemistry     Papers-I
                                                  Anatomy             &II
                                                  Physiology
2        33525/22 Arvapally Akash                 Bio Chemistry    Papers-I &
                                                  Human Anatomy        II
3        34368/22 1. Pochomoni Manasa             Human Anatomy    Paper-I
                     Yadav,
                  2. Md.Nazeer Khan               Bio Chemistry    Paper-II
                                                  Human Anatomy    Paper-I&II
                   3. Kondavath Gokul Sai         Human Anatomy    Paper-II
4        35355/22 Vasireddy Harshitha Choudhary   Theory exams of Paper-I
                                                  Human Anatomy   Paper-II

The petitioners herein are seeking revaluation of their papers on the

following two grounds:-

1. There is no trace of evaluation in the answer scripts except entering the marks allotted to each answer in the script marks reports.

2. There are significant infirmities, illegalities and procedural improprieties while evaluating the answer scripts.

4. 2nd respondent had opposed grant of the said relief on the

following grounds:-

1. There is no rule, regulation or provision of any statute for revaluation of the answer scripts.

2. The examiners have conducted evaluation properly.

3. There are traces of evaluation in the answer scripts.

4. There is no violation of any procedure in digital evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners.

5. There are no significant errors, procedural irregularities, and improprieties committed by the examiners while evaluating the answer scripts as alleged by the petitioners.

RELEVANT RULES:-

5. Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, A.P.Vijayawada, had

issued notification dated 08.06.2011 introducing Double Valuation

System. The said notification was issued on consideration of

Modalities, Regulations and recommendations of the Members of the

Committee and the same were ratified and approved by the Executive

Council.

6. Vide G.O.Ms.No.45, Law (F), dated 01.06.2016, the State of

Telangana has adopted the said Laws of combined State of Andhra

Pradesh as on 02.06.2014.

7. The aforesaid notification dated 08.06.2011 was issued

considering various representations submitted by the students after

exams alleging that the valuation is strict/not proper and that they were

awarded less marks, due to which work load on grievance committee is

increasing. Therefore, to improve the standard of valuation and to find

remedy, it was proposed in the Board of Studies, Academic Senate and

Executive Council held on 03.02.2011 to introduce Double Valuation

System to evolve a transparent method to avoid allegation of students.

Therefore, it was approved to introduce dual valuation system and to

frame modalities for dual valuation. Relevant clauses are mentioned

below:-

   1)         ...........

   2)         The average of the 2 valuations computed shall be taken as

the FINALMARKS awarded in that particular manuscript.

3) In double valuation, if the marks awarded show a deviation of 15% of the maximum possible marks for that paper, such manuscripts shall be subjected to 3rd valuation by a new set of Examiners appointed by the University.

4) Of the first two valuation marks, the marks closest to 3rd valuation will be reckoned as the appropriate among the first two. The average of the 3rd valuation marks and the closest marks of the first two valuation shall be the final marks awarded for that particular manuscripts.

For the aforesaid reasons, Double Valuation System was introduced.

The same was adopted by the State of Telangana.

LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO REVALUATION:-

8. A three judge Bench of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar

Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna1

held as follows:-

"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his marks."

(2004) 6 SCC 714

9. In Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda2,

the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that in the absence of

clear Rules in the subject, a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-

books may throw many problems and in the larger public interest such a

direction must be avoided.

10. In Sahiti Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health

Sciences3, the Apex Court held that in the absence of specific

provisions, such order would be valid if court finds the decision of

educational authority to be not arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide or

against the statutory rule or ordinance, the Court would be slow to

interfere with the decision of educational authority regarding necessity

to order re-evaluation.

11. In All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder

Kumar Dhawan4 it was held that Court's interference in

academic/educational matters is not proper except where interpretation

of a statutory provision or of law is involved.

12. Paragraph No.22 of the judgment in Bihar Staff Selection

Commission (supra) is relevant and the same is extracted below:-

(2004) 13 SCC 383

(2009) 1 SCC 599

(2009) 11 SCC 726

22. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justified the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly in the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. If there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of that panel, the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer the disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was not done; the "corrections" indicated by the single judge were accepted by the BSSC; several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division Bench, thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh, compounding the matter further by not referring the disputed questions to any panel of experts. We are left reiterating the lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the High Court's interference has not resulted in finality "to the result of the examinations" despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertainty about the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter se seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux.

13. With regard to revaluation of MBBS examination papers, the

Apex Court in the Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental

Examination, C.B.S.E. Vs. Khushboo Shrivastava5 while setting

aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna and

also considering various other judgments, held as follows:-

7. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors.

(supra) has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. [2004 (13) SCC 383] in which

(2014) 14 SCC 523

the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of answers books in the rules.

8. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre- Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answers sheets. Hence, the appellants could not have allowed such re-examination or re- evaluation on the representation of the respondent no.1 and accordingly rejected the representation of the respondent no.1 for re-examination/re- evaluation of her answers sheets. The respondent no.1, however, approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed production of answer sheets on the respondent no.1 depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- and when the answer sheets were produced, the learned Single Judge himself compared the answers of the respondent no.1 with the model answers produced by the CBSE and awarded two marks for answers given by the respondent no.1 in the Chemistry and Botany, but declined to grant any relief to the respondent no.1. When respondent no.1 filed the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench also examined the two answers of the respondent no.1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the respondent no.1 deserved two additional marks for the two answers. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to the respondent no.1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (supra) has observed:

'.... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. ...'

14. In Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.6, the Apex Court

discussing its previous decisions, in paragraph Nos.30 to 33 held as

under:-

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and

(2018) 2 SCC 357

balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.

33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee.

15. The above said decisions were considered and affirmed by the

Apex Court in Bihar Staff Selection Commission Vs. Arun Kumar7,

wherein the Apex Court had reiterated the scope of judicial review

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters concerning to

evaluation of the candidates particularly for the purpose of recruitment

to Public Services by narrating the previous decisions of the Court, have

constantly underscored that in the absence of any provision for re-

evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised -

preferably under exceptional circumstances.

(2020) 6 SCC 362

16. In Dr.P.Kishore Kumar Vs. State of A.P.8, the High Court

of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh on examination of the procedure for online digital

evaluation, on seeking information from the service provider and also

after calling for answer scripts, going through the same, it was held in

paragraph Nos.42 to 47 as follows:-

42. To bring the missing link in the online evaluation, the following paragraphs from Laughter the Best Medicine from Readers Digest are scanned and this Court illustratively does online evaluation by using stylus.

43. 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 Honble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadyayas case (5 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. The Vice Chancellor of 2nd respondent University is equipped to decide on the missing links viz., whether the incompleteness is due to tool or technician in evaluation and fix the link for accurate results. The issue ultimately stumbles on evaluation of answer scripts by keeping in view the reasoning/illustrations given above. The University cannot be said to have discharged the onus or responsibility in this behalf or placed before the Court evaluated scripts but is claiming Script Marks Report as evaluation by Examiners of answer sheets of petitioners and award of marks as correct. This Court prefers to go that far and not beyond because on the one hand evaluation of PG/Diploma answer scripts is an academic issue and on the other technological issue of online valuation for neither strictly involves legal principles for judicial review. The Court has examined the deficiency in online evaluation and to that extent, it is not the case of respondents that judicial review is unavailable. To the limited extent

(2016) SCC Online, Hyd 364= (2016) 6 ALT 408

judicial review is permitted particularly by following ratio decidendi of (1) Sahitis case (2) Adiya Bandopadyas case, (3) D.Suvankars case, the discussion is concluded. Further, the Script Marks Report copied and posted in respect of a few answer sheets concur with the omissions and commissions pointed out by the petitioners.

44. To complete the narration, the Court refers to the decision of the Executive Council of respondent University in the meeting held on 31.08.2016 on digital evaluation of answer scripts reads thus:

Digital evaluation of answer scripts:

Information given by the University in the said matter was perused and noted by the council.

Also permitted the University to take up digital evaluation of answer scripts of all examinations in future by identifying an agency and duly following the relevant procedures.

45. Now, online evaluation can be implemented for all examinations. The 2nd respondent reviews the infrastructure and technical compatibility of online evaluation facilities at all centres and appropriate further directions to all colleges/students are issued so that the change now introduced is made a rule or practice in the University. From the resolution dated 31.08.2016, it can be said that the Vice Chancellor has obtained ex post facto approval for the midway change from manual to online evaluation and by the experience now gained, and in view of the principle laid down in Sahitis case (1 supra), this Court is of the view that the Vice Chancellor of 2nd respondent University is entitled to take steps as are required for accurate diagnostic reports for the prognosis/ disease now complained in this batch of writ petitions.

46, 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.

47. The decision relied upon by the 2nd respondent University comes to its aid. The missing link examined and decided by this Court is to be kept in mind. To make online evaluation fully compliant, all steps are taken by 2nd respondent. According to the ratio laid down in Sahitis case (1 supra), the Vice Chancellors jurisdiction in given cases to take decision and in the case on hand, the circumstances warrant the Vice Chancellor of 2nd respondent/University to re-look at the total functionality of online evaluation and change the manner of evaluation, as already noted to better the overall situation. From the present experience, needful is implemented. The grievance of petitioners is looked into by 2nd respondent. Therefore, a holistic view on the evaluation of answer scripts of petitioners is taken by the Vice Chancellor within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and answers scripts evaluated either manually or online, however, by taking all required steps, and thereafter declare the results. The Court in the batch of writ petitions appreciates the objectivity with which the academic and technical evaluation is subjected to judicial review by 2nd respondent University.

17. In Yerra Trinadh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh9 relying on

the aforesaid judgment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi,

directed the University to get the answer scripts of the petitioners therein

evaluated once again as per the prevalent MCI norms by identifying four

fresh examiners.

18. In Siram Sruthi Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, has taken the same view.

(2019) SCC online A.P.93 = (2019) 5 ALT 409

(2022) SCC OnLine AP 533

19. In Dr.J.Kiran Kumar Vs. State of A.P.11, the principle laid

down in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar Vs. State of A.P.12 was reiterated. In

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay13,

the Apex Court held that revaluation is not permissible.

20. As stated above, in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Apex Court

held as follows:-

If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re- evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

Thus, revaluation is permissible under the aforesaid circumstances.

21. As discussed supra, insofar as 2nd respondent University is

concerned, there is no provision for revaluation. It has been following

Double Valuation System to improve the standard of evaluation, this

Court vide order dated 02.09.2022 in W.P.No.34520 and 34368 of 2022,

01.09.2022 in W.P.No.34330 of 2022 granted liberty to the petitioners

2017 (6) ALT 213

2017 (6) ALT 408

(2011) 8 SCC 497,

to approach the Grievance Committee of University with a written

request to view papers along with script marks reports. On receipt of

said request, respondent University shall permit the petitioners to view

their aforesaid answer scripts and also script marks reports.

Accordingly, 2nd respondent had permitted the petitioners to view their

papers. The petitioner in W.P.No.35355 of 2022 had filed writ petition

vide W.P.No.34330 of 2022 questioning the action of the respondent-

University in not furnishing answer scripts under RTI Act. This Court

vide order dated 01.09.2022, directed the respondent University to

permit the petitioner herein to view the answer scripts in Paper-I and

Paper-II of Human Anatomy and marks screening report in respect of

said two papers. On viewing their papers, the petitioners herein have

submitted that there was no trace of evaluation in the answer scripts

including script marks reports except entering the marks in script marks

reports. They found severe and significant errors, procedural

improprieties and illegalities committed by the evaluators while

evaluating the answer scripts. According to them, the answer scripts

carry no marks and tick (√) marks of whatsoever. Therefore, the

evaluation conducted by the respondent University is in violation of

MCI guidelines and also the principle laid down in Dr.P.Kishore

Kumar (supra).

22. In view of the said submissions, this Court has directed 2nd

respondent to produce the evaluated copies of answer scripts of the

petitioners in respect of the above said subjects and papers along with

scripts marks reports. Accordingly, respondent University had produced

the aforesaid copies of evaluated marks sheets along with the script

marks reports. This Court has verified the same and found that there are

tick (√) marks and the evaluators have awarded marks just beside the

tick (√) marks. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is

no trace of the evaluation in the scripts except entering marks allotted to

each paper in the script marks reports, is unsustainable. Therefore, on

the said ground, petitioners herein are not entitled for revaluation of the

aforesaid papers.

23. With regard to other ground raised by the petitioner that there

occurred severe and significant errors, illegalities and procedural

improprieties while evaluating the answer scripts, this Court do not find

any such errors etc., as alleged by the petitioners.

24. It is relevant to note that respondent-University has taken the

assistance of service provider for digital evaluation. The Answer scripts

were evaluated by two valuators. In case of deviation of 15% of the

marks after double valuation, the papers were sent to third valuator.

Therefore, according to this Court, there is no occurrence of severe and

significant errors, illegalities, procedural improprieties while evaluating

the answer scripts as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners herein

failed to show that there are material errors committed by the evaluators

while evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioners. This is not rare or

exceptional case to order for revaluation of the papers as held by the

Apex Court as discussed supra.

25. It is relevant to note that in Dr.P.Kishore Kumar (supra),

Dr.J.Kiran Kumar (supra), Yerra Trinadh (supra), on examination of

the facts, this Court has considered the submissions made by the

petitioners that there were no traces of evaluation, called for answer

scripts taken assistance of the service provider and on satisfying that

there were no tick (√) marks stylus etc., ordered for revaluation of the

answer scripts. Whereas in the present case, this Court has also, on

considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, called for the evaluated answer scripts of the petitioners and

on going through the same, found tick (√) marks and the evaluators have

awarded marks against each question along with the said tick (√) marks.

Therefore, the facts in the aforesaid cases are different from the facts of

the present case.

26. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled for

revaluation of their papers as sought for and the writ petitions are liable

to be dismissed.

27. Therefore, these four writ petitions are dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:23.09.2022 vvr