IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26526 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Anusha D/o. K.P. Paul Singh R/o. Plot No. 254, H.No. 37-109/10/1, Sri Colony, Naredmet Cross Roads, Secunderabad - 56. 2 Gaddam Sai Sri Lekha D/o. G. Sachinder Reddy R/o. M.I.G.-354, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 72. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 The Deputy Registrar (Exams), Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. 3 Chalamada Ananda Rao Medical College, Rep. by its Principal Bommakallu, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not re-evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioner in the 1st Year MBBS Examination pertaining to the subject of Anatomy Papers- 1 & 2 as regards the 1st petitioner bearing Hall Ticker No. 0766049 and Papers I & II Bio Chemistry, Anatomy and Physiology as regards the 2nd Petitioner Bearing Hall Ticket No. 0766110 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondent No. 1 & 2 to re- evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner as sought and consequently award the marks in the 1st Year MBBS Course. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.GANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not re-evaluating the answer scripts of the 1st year MBBS examination pertaining to Papers I & II in Anatomy as regards the 1st petitioner and Papers I & II in Bio-Chemistry, Anatomy and Physiology as regards the 2nd petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal, and a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners and award marks in the 1st year MBBS Course. The petitioners assert that they are meritorious students and they secured very good marks in the EAMCET conducted during the year 2007-2008, and got admission into the 1st year MBBS Course in the 3rd respondent-Medical College. In the first year, the subjects that were taught to the petitioners are Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chemistry, and they appeared for those three subjects, but the University declared them fail in some of the subjects. As it was to their surprise and they were sure of getting very good marks, they approached the 1st respondent-University and requested it to order recounting of marks as provided in the Regulations. The petitioners were directed to appear before the 1st respondent at the time of recounting, accordingly, they appeared before the Committee constituted for the purpose of recounting. During the course of recounting, the petitioners noticed that some of the questions answered by them were not evaluated properly. As the same is restricted to recounting, the recounting was done and it tallied with the marks that were given at the time of valuation. Since the petitioners noticed the said irregularity i.e. granting zero marks/lesser marks to some of the answers etc. though the answers are correct, they have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to re-evaluate their answer scripts. Heard Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned standing counsel for N.T.R. University, appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and perused the material placed on record. When similar matters came up for debate before this Court, this Court 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), this Court directed the 1st respondent-University to constitute a Grievances Committee so that the students like the petitioners can approach the Grievances Committee for redressal of their grievances. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a Grievances Committee has already been constituted. In the light of the constitution of a Grievances Committee, this Court directs the petitioners 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 their grievances and the Grievances Committee shall look into the answer scripts of the petitioners with the help of a subject expert and decide the same within a period of fifteen days thereafter. This writ petition is accordingly disposed. No costs. ______________ 04.12.2008 bcj