HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.22838 of 2014 Date : 4-12-2014 Between:
Sabiha Khatoon ..
Petitioner And Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Represented by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri G. Venkateswarlu for Sri P. Ravi Shanker Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Standing Counsel The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to revalue the petitioner’s answer script of Moalijat II of III Professional BUMS (NS) examination held in the month of April/May 2014.
The petitioner as a student of BUMS course has appeared for examinations for III professional BUMS during 2013 and she has failed in papers I and II of the Moalijat subject. She has later appeared for supplementary examinations held in the month of April 2014 for the said two papers. As per the results declared by respondent No.1- University, the petitioner has passed Paper-I and failed in Paper-II of the said subject. The petitioner averred that as per the press note issued by respondent No.1 to the effect that students can apply for personal identification of their theory answer scripts on payment of Rs.500/- per subject, she has applied for the same and she was directed to appear on 1-8-2014; that accordingly she has appeared on the said date and she was shown the answer paper-II of Moalijat; that to her shock and dismay, she has noticed that the paper is not valued properly; that there were number of corrections made in the paper; and that in respect of some questions, the marks awarded are scaled down from 5 to 3 and the marks originally awarded were struck off and less marks were awarded, while in some places no marks were awarded though the question is answered.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed the Registrar of respondent No.1-University, he has denied the allegation that the answer paper contains several corrections and that marks were reduced from 5 to 3 in some places and that the marks originally given were struck off and less marks were given in other places. It is further stated that the allegation that no marks were given to the answers written by the petitioner is not correct and that the same is invented for the purpose of the Writ Petition. The counter affidavit further stated that respondent No.1-University has constituted a Committee consisting of two members for retotalling of marks; that the duty of the Committee is to verify as to whether all the answers written by the candidate are valued by the examiner and as to whether the totaling of marks is correct or not; that the coded answer scripts would be verified by the Committee and it will submit its report and if the answers written by a candidate are not valued by the examiner, on the report given by the Committee, the answers will be sent for valuation by the subject expert and that if the totaling is wrong, it will be corrected during the re- totalling. It is further averred that all the answers written by the petitioner have been valued by the examiner and therefore the answer scripts of the petitioner were not referred to the examiner for valuation. It is further averred that there is no provision for re-valuation as per the Rules and Regulations of respondent No.1-University.
In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2- college it is inter alia averred that the competent authority for conduct of examinations, declaration of results and envisaging the procedure for personal identification of theory answer scripts of failed students is respondent No.1- University and that respondent No.2-college has no role in personal identification of theory answer scripts of failed students.
No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments in the counter affidavits.
Along with the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 filed the University Regulations. Regulation 14 of the said Regulations reads as under :
“Revaluation of Answer Papers :
“There is no revaluation of answer papers as per the regulations prescribed by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. However, the candidates can apply for re-totaling of their answer scripts by paying the requisite fee as prescribed by the University from time to time.”
In the light of the averments contained in the counter- affidavit of respondent No.1, which categorically denied the allegations made by the petitioner that several corrections were found in her answer script and that the marks originally awarded were reduced for certain questions and in view of Regulation 14, which does not permit re-valuation of answer papers, the relief claimed in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.28642 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 4-12-2014 AM