M RASAGHNYA CHOWDARY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by M. Rasaghnya Chowdary with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Dr. NTR University of Health sciences, Vijayawada in not properly evaluating her answer scripts in respect of examination of 1st year MBBS course in two subjects; viz. , Anatomy and physiology held in March 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner joined in 1st year MBBS course in the month of August 2005 in S. V. Medical College, Tirupati, Chittoor. She wrote 1st year examinations in the month of September, 2006 in two subjects, i. e. Biochemistry and Anatomy and could not write examination in one subject i. e. Physiology. The results were declared in the month of December, 2006 and she was declared as failed in both the subjects i. e. Biochemistry and Anatomy with 2 and 26 marks respectively. She applied for re-totalling by paying the requisite fee. She was allowed to participate in the process of retotaling on 28. 12. 2006. She noticed certain discrepancies in calculation of marks with regard to Biochemistry subject. She appeared for the examination in May 2007 in all the three subjects of 1st year i. e. in Biochemistry, Anatomy and Physiology. She was awarded 12 marks in biochemistry, 5 marks in Anatomy and 4 marks in Physiology. She once again applied for retotalling for which she was asked to appear before the authorities on 28. 8. 2007 wherein she noticed certain discrepancies in the manner in which the papers were evaluated and marks were awarded. She made a representation to 2nd respondent bringing forth the discrepancies in evaluation and awarding marks. But the University did not respond She once again appeared in the examination held in March, 2008. Results were announced in the month of May, 2008 wherein she was declared passed in Biochemistry with 78 marks and failed in anatomy and Physiology with 3 and 18 marks respectively. She made a representation on 12. 5. 2008 under Right to Information Act for supply of xerox copies of answer sheets. She attended on 28. 5. 2008 for retotalling in the university campus. It is her contention that the examiner had not properly evaluated her answer scripts. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition she detailed the questions and marks awarded by the examiners. Her grievance is that her answer scripts were not properly evaluated and therefore they are required to be re-evaluated. For better appreciation, I may refer para 6 to 10 of writ affidavit, which read as under:

(3.) THE respondents filed counter affidavit. One Dr. T. Venugopala Rao has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the request of the petitioner for retotalling was considered and retotalling was done in her presence on 28. 5. 2008. Apart from that the answer scripts were also checked by a committee of two Professors who found after verification that all the questions were evaluated and marks were allotted. The award of zero marks depends on the assessment made by the concerned examiner and therefore the petitioner is not correct in contending that awarding 'zero' marks is unjustified.