IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1849 of 2009 Between: S.Abdul Moiz., S/o. Abdul Basith, R/o. House Bearing, Door No.30/76, Chittari Street, Kurnool City and District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 N.T.R. University of health Sciences A.P., Vijayawada, Rep by its Controller/Deputy Registrar of Examinations. 2 Lakshmi Venkatesh, T.G. College of Physiotherapy, H.No.46-87, Budhawarpeta, Kurnool City and Districts, Rep by its Principal. .....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 or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent/University in not accepting the request of the writ petitioner to revalue his answer script of the theory subject, Neuro for Physio pertaining to 7th Semester Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) Degree examination held in October/November 2008 by a qualified examiner, which was conducted by the 1st respondent/University as illegal, arbitrary and unconsitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent/University to send the answer script of the writ petitioner pertaining to Neuro for Physio theory subject of 7th Semestr Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) Degree examination to a qualified examiner for revaluation Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MD.SHARFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : . O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that he appeared for 7th Semester of B.P.T. Degree examination in the months of October/November, 2008 in Neuro for Physio (cond.) theory subject, but could not succeed in the examination because, according to him, his answer scripts were improperly valued by an unqualified examiner. Then, he requested the 1st respondent-University to send his answer scripts to a qualified examiner for revaluation, but it is his grievance that the 1st respondent has refused to get his answer scripts revalued by a qualified examiner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, appearing for the 1st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision for revaluation of answer scripts in the 1st respondent-University, and a similarly placed person had filed a writ petition in W.P. No.24611 of 2005, and this Court, by an order dated 20.4.2006, while dismissing the writ petition, held as follows: “It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, that as per the academic regulations framed by the University, there is no provision for revaluation. However, the learned counsel placed a letter dated 19.12.2005 issued in Ref.No.E6/BPT/4392/WP.24611/2005 before this Court, wherein it is stated that subsequent to filing this Writ Petition, answer scripts of the petitioner were re-verified and the petitioner failed in the said two subjects of VIII Semester.” Having regard to the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no provision for revaluation of answer scripts and in view of the fact that the answer scripts of a similarly placed petitioner in W.P. No. 24611 of 2005 were re-verified by the 1st respondent-University, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The petitioner is directed to make an application to the 1st respondent-University requesting for re-verification of his answer sheets/re-totalling of his marks, and if such application is made, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 27th February, 2009 bcj