IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26123 of 2008 Between: Kantipula Divya D/o.K.Divya C/o.Narayana Hostel, Nellore, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Registrar, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences Vijayawada 2. The Controller of Examinations, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada,Krishna District 3. Narayana Medical College, Nellore, Nellore district .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature or writ of mandamus directing the respondent officials to act upon the representation dated 29.9.2008 given by the petitioner in respect of revaluation of the Examination papers held for the course of I.M.B.B.S which was held in the month of July 2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.ATCHUTA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is a meritorious student and she got good marks in the EAMCET and was admitted in the first year MBBS course in the third respondent medical college. In the first year the subjects that were taught to the petitioner are Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chemistry and she appeared for those three subjects, but, however the University declared her fail in Anatomy. As it was to her surprise and she was sure of getting very good marks, she approached the 1st respondent university and requested it to order recounting of marks as provided for in the regulations. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent at the time of recounting and accordingly she appeared before the committee constituted for the purpose of recounting. During the course of recounting the petitioner noticed that some of the questions answered by her were not evaluated properly. As the same is restricted to recounting, the re- counting was done and it tallied with the marks that were given at the time of valuation. Since the petitioner noticed the said irregularity i.e, granting Zero marks to some of the answers etc., though the answers are correct, according to the petitioner, she approached this Court and filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not re- evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, appearing on behalf of the respondents. In the light of the aforesaid controversy, this Court earlier directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the answer scripts of certain students and accordingly the answer scripts were produced. After verification of the said answer scripts, this Court prima facie felt that the marks awarded by the Examiner, who valued the papers, appears to be not in conformity with the answers written by the students in the answer scripts. However, it is not for this Court to decide as to whether the said answers are right or not and what are the marks that are to be awarded to the said questions. When similar matters came up for debate before this Court, this Court has categorically held that it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to have a judicial review of the issue as it is within the domain of the experts of the respective fields. Answering so and also taking a clue from Section 30 of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 – Act No.6 of 1986, this Court directed the 1st respondent-University to constitute a Grievances Committee so that the students like the petitioner can approach the said Grievances Committee to redress their grievances. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a Grievances Committee has already been constituted. In the light of constitution of a Grievances Committee, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the Grievances Committee constituted under Section 30 of the Act by the 1st respondent-University within a period of ten days from today and submit a representation for redressal of her grievances and the Grievances Committee shall look into the answer scripts of the petitioner with the help of a subject expert and decide the same within a period of Fifteen days thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada December 1, 2008 MAS