THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 24256 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a student who is pursuing her Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course. She appeared for the examinations that were conducted for the 1st Year BDS course in June-July 2010 and the results of the said examinations were published. In General Anatomy as against a minimum of 50 marks to be secured, the writ petitioner alleged to have secured 38 marks in theory and in Physiology, she is said to have secured 49 as against the minimum of 50 out of 100. Consequently, she was declared to have failed in both these subjects. She applied for re-totalling and identified her answer scripts. She has noticed that for several questions for which she has given answers correctly, particularly in Physiology subject, the evaluator has awarded `0’ marks and also marks in fractions. The writ petitioner feels that the evaluation made of her answer scripts is improper and inaccurate. According to the writ petitioner, for six of the questions, answers furnished by the writ petitioner for Anatomy were evaluated awarding her `0’ marks. The writ petitioner submits that as per the approved text books on the subjects, she has given answers correctly. But, the evaluation was grossly improper. In somewhat similar circumstances when a similar question has fallen for consideration in WP NO. 379 of 2008, dated 16.4.2008, I directed the 1st respondent – University to constitute a Grievance Redressal Mechanism by constituting a Committee comprising of the subject experts so that such of those students who nurture grievances against the improper valuation of their answer scripts can have a proper remedy, after getting the same examined by subject experts. Based upon such an exercise, their results can be appropriately either varied or confirmed. I therefore direct that the 1st respondent – University to constitute a Committee of experts for giving a fresh look at the answer scripts of Anatomy as well as Physiology subjects in which the writ petitioner has appeared for the examinations held in June – July 2010 and thereafter declare her results within a maximum period of ten days from today. The results of the writ petitioner be communicated to her as well as to the 3rd respondent – College where she is prosecuting her studies. The writ petitioner will file a detailed representation before the NTR University of Health Sciences within the next three days as to how she feels that her answers have been improperly evaluated. With this the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 1st October 2010 Note: CC immediately (b/o) knk