IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26971 of 2008 Between: Miss.CH.Nishitha D/o.C.Krishna Reddy R/o.H.No.1-4-65/2, Street No.8 Hubsiguda, Hyderabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chancellor, Dr.N.T.R.Univeristy of Health Sciences Vijayawada 2 The Registrar, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences Vijayawada 3 The Principal, S.V.S.Medical and Science college Mahaboobnagar .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declare that the action on the part of the respondents in not conducting revaluation in the subject of S.P.M. of final M.B.B.S.Part-I even though the recounting has made clear that there is specific failure in awarding the marks and thereby declaring the action as arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the interest of justice and equity and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAMINENI KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE 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 conducting revaluation in the subject of S.P.M. of final year M.B.B.S. Part-I even though the recounting has made clear that there is specific failure in awarding the marks, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts she is a meritorious student and got admission into M.B.B.S. Course in the 3rd respondent-Medical College. In the final year of M.B.B.S. Part-I, the subjects that were taught to the petitioner are E.N.T., Ophthalmology and S.P.M., and she appeared for those three subjects, but the University declared her fail in S.P.M subject. As it was to her surprise and she was sure of getting very good marks, she approached the 1st respondent-Vice Chancellor, N.T.R. University and requested him to order recounting of marks as provided in the Regulations. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent at the time of recounting, 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 recounting 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/lesser marks to some of the answers etc. though the answers are correct, she has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to re-evaluate her answer scripts. Heard Sri Samineni Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner 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-Vice-Chancellor to constitute a Grievances Committee so that the students like the petitioner 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 petitioner to approach the Grievances Committee constituted under Section 30 of the Act by the 1st respondent, within a period of ten days from today and submit a representation for redressal of her grievance 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. This writ petition is accordingly disposed. No costs. ______________ 11.12.2008 Note: Furnish copy by Monday B/o bcj