LACHI NAGA VENNELA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, who prosecutes her MBBS IV year in Narayana Medical College, Nellore, filed the instant writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent in evaluating her Final MBBS Part-I examination in the subjects of 509A-ENT, 510A-Opthalmology held in January/February, 2020 without following the earlier orders of this High Court and declaring the result as 'failed' in the two subjects of ENT and Opthalmology, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to get her answer scripts in the subjects of ENT and Opthalmology of Final Part-I re-evaluated by strictly following the directions given by this court in earlier judgments.

(2.) The petitioner's case succinctly is thus. The petitioner appeared for Final MBBS Part-I examination (Hall Ticket No.16054098) conducted by the 2nd respondent in the month of January/Febaury, 2020. The results were announced and she came to know that she was failed in two Theory subjects of 509A-ENT and 510A-Opthalmology wherein she secured 22 and 21 marks respectively out of the minimum required 25 marks each. The petitioner claims that she is a brilliant student and in all the academic years she secured distinction and there was no reason that she should fail in the final MBBS Part-I. She suspects that mistakes might have crept in while digitally evaluating her answer sheets in the Theory subjects i.e., 509A-ENT and 510A-Opthalmology. She narrated certain instances of how mistakes might have taken place. It is stated that as per the University norms, answer sheets are evaluated digitally. The service provider is authorized to decode, scan and upload the answer sheets on the computer to transfer them to the respective examiners for correction. In the process, if the server was down all the answer sheets might not have been uploaded correctly and some of them might be missing. The service provider does not take meticulous care to see whether all the papers have been uploaded or not.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material averments and inter alia contending thus.