Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kongar A
Kongar A
Kongar A
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed ‘to declare the action of the 1st
of 700, but the minimum pass marks is 350; petitioner has a legitimate
was pointed out by this Court in ‘Dr. P. Kishore Kumar & others vs. State
Dr.P.Kishore Kumar’s case was pointed out in ‘Dr.J. Kiran Kumar & others
1
2016 (6) ALT 408
2
2017 (6) ALT 213
2
KVL, J
WP No.14179 of 2020
taken steps to rectify the defects pointed out by this Court and
answers; WA Nos.363 and 364 of 2019 were filed challenging the said
orders and both the writ appeals were dismissed; aggrieved by the same,
Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Apex Court and it is in
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : vinay r kumar
the Court along with the scanned copies of answer sheets of the
answer sheets personally and according to the said direction, they were
produced on 16.10.2020 and the petitioner and his counsel have verified
the same and the petitioner was asked to file an affidavit with regard to
the same.
Learned standing counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in ‘Sahiti & others vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R.
3
AIR 2009 SC 879
3
KVL, J
WP No.14179 of 2020
plain unevaluated answer scripts along with filled up script marks report
which is separately attached is produced before this Court and the same
is contrary to the judgments in Dr. P Kishore Kumar’s case (1st supra) and
‘Yerra Trinadh & others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh4’ and that answer
7. Now the point for consideration is, whether the examiners have
that evaluators were given training before evaluating the answer scripts
and all the necessary tools were also provided to them. When this Court
verified the answer scripts, there is no proof at all to show that they
were actually evaluated by the examiner and none of the answer scripts
contain any mark to show that they were actually evaluated. Both the
use the techniques which are available to them while evaluating answer
scripts and that they exercised their discretion not to use the said tools
while correcting the answer sheets and they only entered the marks on
the ‘Script Marks Report’. The scanned copies of the answer scripts of
the petitioners are taken on record, and made part of the record.
4
2019 ALT (5) 409
4
KVL, J
WP No.14179 of 2020
10. Dr. P. Kishore Kumar’s case (supra) was filed to declare the
produced and after examining the answer sheets the Court came to a
case, when the representative of the service provider stated that the
question, it was observed that the scanned answer scripts do not bear
answer scripts, and not the data entered on a separate script marks
report. In the said judgment it was observed that the power of judicial
answer scripts requires updating tools and skills of examiners and that
least looked at and appreciated for evaluation. It was held that “this
Court is of the view that script answers reports are treated as evaluation
of answer scripts, in fact, had taken place and script marks report is the
by the Vice Chancellor within three weeks from the date of receipt of a
online, however, by taking all required steps, and thereafter declare the
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : vinay r kumar
results”.
the marks. The first contention of the petitioners therein was that the
orders of this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar’s case (supra). Even in the
said case the answer sheets were directed to be produced and it is the
contention of the petitioners therein that the answer scripts did not
contain any signs of use of tools provided in the software and that after
manual valuation of the answer scripts which was done pursuant to the
whose answer scripts were valued, 28 candidates passed and thus, there
valuation done after digital valuation. In the said judgment, this Court
observed that “though the usage of tools while evaluating the answer
sheets was highlighted in the said judgment, the same is not followed
while evaluating answer scripts even in this batch of cases. The marks
were filled up in a separate marks sheet and that is the reason why
sheets, the digital sheets were not shown to them, but only manual
scripts were shown”. In the said case, the second contention that was
Court found that the method adopted by the University is contrary to the
regulations it held that the valuation done to the answer scripts of the
petitioners therein was invalid and allowed the Writ Petitions and this
Court also directed the University to revalue the theory answer scripts of
relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar’s case
and Dr. J. Kiran Kumar’s case, allowed the Writ petition and directed
the respondents therein to once again evaluate the answer scripts. The
petitioners therein were also a group of medical students and they filed
the Writ Petition to declare the action of the respondents therein in not
getting the answer scripts digitally evaluated as per the earlier orders of
this Court as illegal and arbitrary and even in the said case the answer
scripts were produced and they did not contain any marks to show that
observed that, despite the said two judgments the examiners have not
is clear that the examiners have not utilized the tools and there are no
stylus marks on the answer sheets and have not awarded marks on the
answer scripts for each question. Even though a specific direction has
hand, with the illustration given, this Court is of the view that Script
fact, had taken place and Script Marks Report is the summary of such
evaluation”.
examination of the petitioner does not arise at all. But the said
contention does not merit consideration, as the petitioner has got every
right to ask for correct evaluation of the paper which he has written
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahiti’s case (supra), submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that in the absence of any rules providing for
judgment may not apply to the facts of the present case, as the
the respondents that while evaluating the answer scripts, digital tools
8
KVL, J
WP No.14179 of 2020
like stylus marks, tick marks or ‘x’ marks, underling, comments etc. are
not used at all and there are no traces of evaluation on the papers and
marks are not awarded to each answer in the answer sheet. It was
16. This Court does not find fault with the University as the
examiners with all the necessary tools. Even though, the contention of
to use tools provided to them, none of the answer scripts contain any
evaluation by the examiners. When the examiners have not utilized the
tools and have not made any mark on the answer script, this Court, in
examiners to physically put the marks viz. stylus mark, tick mark etc.
9
KVL, J
WP No.14179 of 2020
on the uploaded answer script and the corrected sheet was directed to
be preserved for future review and the entire exercise was directed to
be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
is also raised in WP No.9853 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated
18. This Court allowed the said writ petition and directed to get
the answer scripts evaluated once again as per the prevalent MCI norms
therein that such examines shall mention their remarks as well as the
marks awarded for each answer clearly on the uploaded answer scripts
by using digital tools and the corrected answer sheets must be preserved
20. The judgments in Dr.P Kishore Kumar’s case (supra) and Dr. J.
Kiran Kumar’s case (supra) were also followed in subsequent cases i.e.,
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : vinay r kumar
in WP No.9846 and 10376 of 2019 and the writ appeals i.e., WA Nos.363
and 364 of 2019 were filed challenging the orders in the above two writ
petitions and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ
21. In the instant case also the examiners have not used the
digital tools like stylus marks, ‘tick’ marks or ‘x’ marks, underling or
comments etc. following the guide lines issued in the earlier judgments
on the same issue and hence, the contention of the learned standing
counsel for the university that the usage of digital tools is discretionary
cannot be accepted. Marks are also not allotted to each answer on the
answer sheet.
the new set of examiners to use the digital tools and they shall mention
the marks awarded for each answer clearly on the uploaded answer
review. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6)
________________________
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : vinay r kumar
Date: 17.02.2021
Note: Furnish CC in two days
(BO)
BSS
12
KVL, J
WP No.14179 of 2020
URGENT
57
| Printed using casemine.com by licensee : vinay r kumar
Date: 17.02.2021
BSS