IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION Nos. 22274 of 2008; 22336 of 2008; 22666 of 2008 And W.P.No.24003 of 2008 Between: 1. B. Shashikanth Reddy, S/o. B. Mohan Reddy R/o. D.No.16-11-456/1/A, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. 2. G. Sneha Reddy D/o. G. Vivekananda Reddy R/o. Flat No.402, Radha Enclave, Street No.15 Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Represented by its Registrar Vijayawada. 2 The Deputy Registrar (Exams), Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Vijayawada. 3 Narayana Medical College Represented by its Principal Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not re-evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioners in the 1st Year MBBS Examination pertaining to the subject of Bio- Chemistry Paper-I as regards the 1st Petitioner and Anatomy Papers I and II as regards the 2nd Petitioner bearing Hall Ticket Nos.0754012 & 0754030 respectively as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the Respondents 1 & 2 to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners as sought and consequently award the marks in the 1st Year MBBS. Course. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.V.SITARAMA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU WRIT PETITION No. 22336 of 2008 Between: J.Sai Nireeha Anand D/o.J.Ramanand Punjagutta officers colony, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences Vijayawada 2 The Principal, Bhaskar Medical college, Moinabad R.R.District .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not correcting the mistakes in evaluating the Anatomy paper I&II of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and direct the respondents to forward the answer scripts in order to revaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner in the Hon`ble court by an expert from another university and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JALAKAM.SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU WRIT PETITION NO : 22666 of 2008 Between: Neppala Siva Ram, S/o. N.Krishna Murthy, R/o. 37-1-405 (35), Bhagyanagar 3rd Lane, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Rep by its Registrar 2 The Principal, Katuru Medical College and Hospital, katuri Nagar, Chinna Kondrapadu, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not sending the answer script of the petitioner in respect of the subject "Anatomy" in the examination held in the month of July, 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequentily direct the 1st Respondent to send the answer script of the pettioner bearing Hall Ticket no.0761062 to another examiner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU WRIT PETITION No. 24003 of 2008 Between: Srija Parvatha Reddy, S/o. Madhusudhana Reddy, r/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vijayawada, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 The Deputy Registrar (Exams), Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences Vijayawada. 3 Sri Venkata Sai Medical College, Mahabubnagar, Rep by its Principal .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not re-evaluting the answer scripts of the petitioner in the 1st year MBBS examination pertaining to the subject of Bio-Chemistry Paper-II bearing Hall Ticket No. 0753078 as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to re-evaulate the answer scripts of the petitioner as sought and consequently award the marks in the 1st Year MBBS course and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: As the point involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same they are being disposed of by this common order. All the petitioners are meritorious students and they got very good marks in the EAMCET conducted during the year 2006-2007 and thereafter they got admission into 1st year MBBS course in different medical colleges. 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, however 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 respodnent university and requested it to order recounting of marks as provided for in the regulations. The petitioners were directed to appear before the 1st respondent at the time of recounting and 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 re-counting 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 to some of the answers etc., though the answers are correrct, according to the petitioners, they approached this Court and filed the present writ petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not re-evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned Cousnel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, appearing on behalf of the respondents. In the light of the aforesaid controversy, this Court directed the learned Standing Cousnel to produce the answer scripts of the petitioners and accordingly the answer scripts were produced. After verification of the said answer scripts of the petitioners, this Court prima facie felt that the marks awarded by the Examiner, who valued the papers, appears to be not in confirmity with the answers written by the petitioners in the answer scripts. However, it is not for this Court to decide as to whether the said answers are right or not and what are the marks that are to be awarded to the said questions. When similar matters came up for debate before this Court, this Court has 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 constitue a Grievances Committee so that the students like the petitioners can approach the said Grievances Committee to redress their grievances. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a Grievances Committee has already been constituted. In the light of 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 peirod of Fifteen days thereafter. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 18-11-2008 Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. (Bo) Gsn.