[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Nookathota Anjali Goutam vs Union Of India on 2 April, 2026
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION Nos.38209 and 38211 of 2025
2ND APRIL, 2026
W.P. No.38209 of 2025
Between:
Nookathota Anjali Goutam ... Petitioner
W.P. No. 38211 of 2025
Mahalle Sushrut Ranjit
AND
Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
National Medical Commission
And 4 others ...Respondents
COMMON ORDER :
These writ petitions are filed seeking the following relief:
"issue an order, writ, or direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ declaring, the inaction of the respondents, in
considering the email request of the petitioner dated
27.11.2025 to conduct revaluation of petitioner's
Biochemistry Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS
supplementary University Examinations, October-2025
in Roll.No.2024001001015 in W.P.No.38209 of 2025
and in conducting revaluation of petitioner's Human
Anatomy Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS
Supplementary University Examinations, November-
2025 in Roll No.2024001001094 in W.P.No.38211 of
2011 and 3rd respondent stating that only a re-totaling is
permissible and final but not re-valuation of exam sheets,
as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural
justice, prejudiced, unconstitutional, against Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India coupled with flagrant
violation of the rules of University Grants Commission
and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a
revaluation of the petitioners Answer Scripts in First
Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations in
Biochemistry and Human Anatomy, with different set of
evaluators and pass such other order ..."
2. Since the relief prayed for in both the writ petitions is similar in
nature, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common
order.
3. Heard Mr.Chintala Srikanth, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Ravinder Reddy
Muppu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4
and 5. Perused the record.
4. Case of the petitioners is that despite having made adequate
preparation for the examinations and being confident of their
performance, they were declared unsuccessful in the MBBS First
Year examinations in the subject of Biochemistry and Human
Anatomy. Being aggrieved by the said result and believing that their
answer scripts were not properly evaluated, they approached the
respondent authorities seeking access to their answer scripts and
requesting revaluation by a second set of valuators. However, the
respondent authorities rejected their request and instead directed
them to apply for re-totaling of marks.
5. Further case of the petitioners is that as per the applicable
rules, a student who fails in any subject in the First Year MBBS
course, is not eligible for promotion to the next academic year and
will be detained in the same year. Notably, such a stringent rule is
not applicable to the subsequent four academic years of the MBBS
course. In these circumstances, the petitioners contend that they
have no opportunity to clear backlogs, while progressing
academically, as promotion to the next year is strictly contingent
upon passing all subjects. Therefore, they specifically pleaded the
respondents to re-evaluate their answer scripts, but there was no
response from the respondents. Subsequently, when the petitioners
approached the respondent-university, they were orally informed
that re-evaluation is not permissible and only re-totaling of marks
can be done. Hence, the writ petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite
repeated requests for revaluation of the petitioners' answer scripts
pertaining to the MBBS First Year theory examinations in the
subjects of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy by a different set of
evaluators, the respondent-university has failed to consider the
same. He further submits that the respondent-University has
conducted the valuation of the answer scripts only through a single
evaluator, unlike other State Universities where valuation is
undertaken by multiple evaluators, typically three, to ensure
accuracy and fairness. Such a system of single valuation increases
the likelihood of errors and any erroneous assessment would attain
finality without further scrutiny, thereby depriving the petitioners of
any opportunity for correction. Hence, learned counsel prayed this
Court to direct the respondents to re-evaluate the answer scripts of
the petitioners by a different set of evaluators and also permit the
petitioners to verify their answer scripts of MBBS First Year
Biochemistry and Human Anatomy personally, subject to payment of
requisite fee, as per the Rules.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.4 and 5, by way of filing an Evaluation Response
Sheet, dated 08.01.2026, submits that the double valuation of the
petitioners' theory answer scripts was carried out independently by
two eligible external examiners, who were not affiliated with Malla
Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth, in compliance with the norms prescribed
by the National Medical Commission (NMC). He further submits
that recounting of the petitioners answer scripts was already done
and there was "no change" in the marks. He further submits that if
the petitioners are still aggrieved by the result of the recounting, they
are at liberty to approach the Grievance Committee of respondent-
University by submitting an application in the prescribed form along
with the requisite fee. However, learned Standing Counsel reported
no objection in directing the respondent-University to re-verify the
petitioners answer scripts relating to the MBBS First Year
Biochemistry and Human Anatomy and in permitting the petitioners
to verify their answer scripts of MBBS First Year Biochemistry and
Human Anatomy personally, subject to payment of the requisite fee.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on both sides, this Court deems it appropriate to direct
respondent-University to re-verify the petitioners answer scripts
relating to the MBBS First Year theory examinations in the subjects
of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy forthwith and also permit the
petitioners to verify their answer scripts of MBBS First Year
Biochemistry and Human Anatomy personally, on payment of
requisite fee, as per the Rules.
9. With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 02.04.2026
Note: C.C. by 06.04.2026.
B/o.
BV
