Telangana High Court
Mogili Kinnera vs The State Of Telangana on 27 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.195 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy 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 Kaloji
Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred
to as, "the University"), for respondents No.2 and 3.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. The challenge in this writ appeal is mounted to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1031 of 2025, dated
05.02.2025.
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
in Human Anatomy (Paper I and II) in the First Year MBBS
Supplementary Examinations held in November, 2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a plain
reading of the marks given to the appellant by the first evaluator
and the second evaluator in Human Anatomy (Paper II) will show
that there is a vast difference in the evaluation. A reference is
made to the following marks:
B. HUMAN ANATOMY PAPER-II
Evaluation-1 Evaluation-2
11)8/15 11)1.5/15
12)9/15 12)1.5/15
6. Considering this discrepancy, which is enormous in nature,
the aforesaid writ petition was filed.
7. It is argued that, in the counter affidavit, it was not disclosed
that any 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.
U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad 1. 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 SCHEME OF EVALUATION -
Approved
It is resolved that Digital valuation of the question
papers is approved. Double valuation is mandatory.
Discrepancy in two valuations of more than 15% is sent
for third valuation. If no discrepancy then the average
marks obtained in double valuation is taken as final. In
case of more than 15% variation the third evaluator's
mark nearer to the original evaluator is taken into
consideration and an average of the original and the
third evaluations is done.
Average of Three valuations is to be taken. It is
approved by the Members of Common MBBS BOS.
All the Examiners of deputed for Digital
evaluation can discuss and set guidelines for that
subject for valuation before start of evaluation at
digital valuation centre."
9. On this strength, it is submitted that the third evaluator, in
accordance with this decision, evaluated the answer sheets in
(2007) 3 SCC 720
question and gave 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 above and no other point is pressed.
11. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
12. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has
recorded as under:
"34. It is relevant to note that considering the said
submissions this Court directed 2nd and 3rd respondents to
produce the said answer sheets. They have produced the
aforesaid answer sheets in a sealed covers. This Court
perused the same. There is no discrepancy and procedural
lapses. However, this Court cannot come to a conclusion and
give a finding that evaluators did not awarded marks
properly.
35. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, in
Human Anatomy Subject Paper-II the difference between the
marks awarded by 1st and 2nd evaluator is 14. Therefore, the
same was evaluated by 3rd evaluator, who awarded 23.5
marks out of 100 marks, which was rounded off to 24
marks. The average is 30 out of 100 marks. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot 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 skilled job and it requires expertise. It is the
specific contention of respondent No.2 that they are
evaluating the answer scripts digitally and none of the
examiners will be aware of the identity of the students whose
answer scripts is being evaluated.
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
shall 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 and 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 finding
that there is no flaw in the decision making process. We find
substance in the 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 22.01.2020 reproduced hereinabove.
15. In the absence of any flaw in the decision making process
and the decision which is in consonance with the minutes of the
meeting of Board of Studies of Common MBBS held on
22.01.2020, no interference is warranted.
16. So far the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh
(supra) is concerned, it deals with the aspect of "examiner
variability". The Supreme Court opined that some procedure
should be adopted to reduce "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner
variability". The respondents have adopted such method of
decision, dated 22.01.2020, and pursuant to that, the third
evaluator gave the marks to the appellant. Thus, no fault can be
found in the impugned order.
17. The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
27.02.2025
sa/vs
