IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 852 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/04/2009 in WP NO : 25816 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Board of Intermediate Education, rep.by its Secretary Nampally, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND V.M.Swathi, rep.by her Father &Guardina v.Madhu,S/o.Krishnaiah, R/o.Naidupet, Nellore district .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:KUM.C.SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY The Court made the following : . HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 852 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari). This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No:25816 of2008 on 24.4.2009. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner who has filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent-Board is illegal and direct the respondent-Board to award one more mark for question No:7 and two marks for question No:9 in Physics answer script on the ground that they are correct as per the key answers. The learned single Judge having observed that it is clear that the answers given by the writ petitioner to question Nos.7 and 9 were not properly corrected and it is only with regard to the proper correction of the paper of the examinee, which needs to be done, allowed the writ petition directing the respondent-Board to re correct the answers given by the petitioners to question Nos.7 and 9 of Physics paper I of Intermediate I years and award marks as per law. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the respondent-Board. Heard and perused the entire material available on record. According to the writ petitioner, question No:7 is a short question and for its answer, it carries two marks, but she was awarded only one mark and this sort of practice of allotting one mark splitting the allocated marks of two for a short question is not permissible. Apart from that, with regard to question No:9, full marks were awarded to the another student bearing Hall ticket No:0808134719 whereas the writ petitioner was denied the marks for the similar answer. In this background of the matter, the learned single Judge having examined the issue in detail and having arrived at the conclusion that it is only with regard to proper correction of the paper of the examinee, which needs to be done and therefore, the same cannot be construed as a revaluation, allowed the writ petition. At this stage, the learned Advocate General has submitted that two marks have been awarded to question No:9 and accordingly fresh memorandum of marks has been issued to the writ petitioner. In view of the above action of the appellant-Board and in view of the fact that new memorandum of marks has been issued, we feel that nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal is closed. _____________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ Justice SANJAY KUMAR Dated 13th July, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 852 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Dated 13th July, 2009.