IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 18924 of 2007 Between: Kondeti Sri Krishna Chaitanya S/o.Dr.K. Venkata Ratnam R/o. B/14, PWD Quarters, Museum Road, Governerpeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chancellor, N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Registrar. .....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 to issue a writ order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioner in the subject Obstetrucs/Gynecology Papers-1 and II and also not awarding marks to him in Obstetrics/Gynecology Subject paper-I and II of Final Year MBBS Course as per the allocation of marks made for each bit in the question papers and not taking any action for curing the defects by getting the same evaluated by another Evaluator even though the said irregularity was brought by the petitioner to the notice of the University authorities by filing a representation dt.3-8-2007 as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith place the answer scripts of the subject Obstetrics/Gynecology Paper-I and II of Final Year MBBS Course of the petitioner wherein he got 54 marks out of 80 marks and send the same to any other Evaluator for revaluation other than the respondent University for re-valuation and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following ORDER : The writ petitioner herein who is prosecuting his MBBS course at Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada, appeared for the final MBBS course examinations that were conducted in April and May, 2007. However, of 87 students who appeared only two students are said to have failed in Obstetrics/Gynecology Papers-I and II and the writ petitioner is one amongst them. The writ petitioner has asserted that all through his career he has maintained an excellent academic record including during his MBBS course. Unfortunately for him he was declared to have failed in Obstetrics/Gynecology as he has not secured the minimum of 50% of marks in the theory paper. The writ petitioner contends that the pattern of the examination comprises of one theory question and 5 short note questions and 5 brief note questions. The essay question carries 10 marks while the short notes question carry 4 marks each and the brief note question carry 2 marks each. The question paper has clearly indicated the distribution of the maximum marks on various counts. Thus the students as well as the evaluators have been provided the necessary guidance by the University by indicating the exhaustive nature of the answers required to be furnished for certain components of the questions while the remaining components may not necessarily be dealt with exhaustively. As the facility of re-totalling was available, the petitioner has availed of the same and he has been permitted to identify his answer scripts. What the petitioner has noted is that in contrast to the distribution of marks which are required to be awarded, he has been awarded on the whole, but not by way of distribution. The learned Standing Counsel for the University has pointed out that there is no provision for re-valuation of the answer scripts and therefore no fault can be attributed to the University and a similar question has been raised in WP No. 379 of 2008. After perusing the various provisions of NTR University of Health Sciences Act, it has been pointed out that that it is the duty of the University to have the answer scripts correctly and properly evaluated. Depending upon the nature of irregularities alleged to have been committed in the process of evaluation, remedial measures have got to be put in place. In fact, the statute has contemplated composition of a Grievances Committee which can attend to the grievances of the students and the employees of the University and redress them. It is also noticed that the Academic Council can tender its advice to the Executive Council of the University, which has been constituted as the appellate authority for entertaining the appeals against any decision of the University. In matters of this nature as to whether the answers furnished by the writ petitioner to the various questions have received appropriate consideration at the hands of the evaluator or not is a matter which has got to be examined by the subject experts alone. It will not be proper for this Court to substitute its opinion to that of the University which is the competent body. This apart, the Academic Council comprised of eminent academicians of the University who will be in a better position to advise the Executive Council to take appropriate decision in the matter. In the instant case, if the writ petitioner prefers an appeal to the Executive Council within a week’s time from today, his answer scripts for Obstetrics/Gynecology subjects be considered by the Grievances Committee, which will suggest the necessary method of redressing the same. I therefore direct the respondent University to constitute the Grievances Committee for redressing the grievances of the petitioner herein so that the said Committee can examine the answer scripts of the writ petitioner and ascertain as to whether the evaluation process has been confined to the scheme of evaluation furnished by the University or not. If the evaluator has not followed strictly, the guidelines offered by way of distribution of marks on various components of the answers, the Grievances Committee will redress the same by drawing up an appropriate report based upon which a final decision be taken by the Executive Council within one month. With this the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 16.4.2008 Knk Note : CC in (2) days (b/o) knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}