THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.15667 OF 2010 ORDER: The writ petitioner prosecuted his Post Graduate Education – M.D. (Anatomy) from the Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool. He appeared for the final year examinations that were conducted by the 2nd respondent University in April / May 2010. Out of 400 marks for the theory examinations, a candidate was required to secure a minimum of 50% of marks, i.e., 200 marks, to pass the examination. Similarly, in viva-voce and practical test also, out of 300 marks, candidates are required to secure 50% of marks, namely, 150 marks. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was declared to have secured 195 marks out of 300 marks for the viva vose and practical examinations and thus, was declared to have passed the said examination. But however, he was declared to have secured 198 marks out of 400 for his theory examination, consequently, fell short of ½ % to clear the examination. Since, the 2nd respondent University entertains claims for re-totaling of the answer scripts, suspecting that there could have been a computational error, the writ petitioner paid for and asked for recomputation of his answer script. Accordingly, he appeared before the 2nd respondent University and identified his answer script. In the process, he could identify that the evaluator has granted to him marks, which are in fraction, such as, ½, 1½, 2 ½, etcetera. The writ petitioner, therefore, suspects that his performance at the theory examination has not received a fair and proper assessment. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, submits that the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University has the power to order for revaluation of any answer script of a student if he has reason to believe that the performance of the student has not received a fair or appropriate assessment at the hands of the valuer. Similarly, the general guidelines, which were circulated for valuation of M.B.B.S., answer scripts, clearly indicated that fractions of marks should be rounded of. A similar instruction, perhaps, could have been also passed on by the University to the evaluators of the Post Graduate answer scripts as well. The learned counsel would also submit that a maximum of five grace marks are allowed by the University to mitigate the hardship faced by the students due to inaccurate valuation of the answer scripts or due to different yardsticks or criteria in evaluation adapted by the evaluators. Hence, in the instant case, if two more grace marks are added, perhaps, the writ petitioner would have been declared to have passed his Post Graduate examination in the Anatomy subject. Therefore, the writ petitioner has submitted a detailed representation on 18- 06-2010 to the Vice Chancellor of the University, but, unfortunately, the said representation has not been examined or attended to so far by the 2nd respondent University. Hence, this writ petition. This matter appeared on 15-07-2010 and though Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India and Sri D.V. Nagarjune Babu, appearing for the 2nd respondent University, could take notice, no counter affidavit has been filed in the matter so far. But however, with their consent, I propose to dispose of the writ petition at this stage without waiting for the formal counter affidavits from the party respondents in view of the judgment rendered by me in W.P.No.379 of 2008, dated 16-04-2008, wherein I had occasion to examine a some what similar controversy relating to the improper valuation of answers furnished by a student, who was pursuing her M.B.B.S. Course, and I have suggested to the University to adapt the following procedure for redressing the grievances of the students. In the said judgment, it is, thus, observed; “ the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University Sri D.B. Nagarjuna Babu submits that in pursuance to this judgment, the University will constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee, whenever a request is made by the students for availing such a facility”. As is already noticed, such Committees are required to comprise of, at least, one such Professor. Such mechanism, in my opinion, would redress the grievances of the students to the extent, as they are possible. Since, the Committee comprises of academicians, their sense of impartiality and fairness can also be assured. I, therefore, consider it appropriate even in this case to direct the 2nd respondent University to constitute a grievance redressal Committee, immediately, at any rate within fifteen days from today, comprising of, at least, two Professors, who were teaching the subject of Anatomy at the Post Graduate level and the said Committee may examine the answer script of the writ petitioner and file their report within a weeks time, after their inspection. Based upon the findings of the said Committee, the 2nd respondent University will take appropriate decision, in case of necessity including modifying the result of the writ petitioner. In any of the matter, within one week from the date the Committee submits his report a decision would be taken and the same will be communicated to the writ petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due, at the address to be furnished by him to the University within one week from today. Since, I have preferred to refer the grievance of the writ petitioner to the Committee’s examination, I have not examined the tenability of the claims made by the writ petitioner in this case and hence, all such contentions are kept open. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue copy on two days. (bo) mrk 28th September 2010