Re-Evaluation By Third Examiner Prohibited Unless Explicitly Permitted By Regulation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Medical Student's Plea

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declined the plea of a medical student seeking re-evaluation by a 3-member expert committee of her final year MBBS exam scripts.

The court ruled that the order passed by the Single Judge, directing a third-party evaluation was incorrect as proper procedures had been followed.

The order was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao in a letter of patents appeal filed by the Y.S.R University of Health and Sciences challenging the order passed by a single Judge of the High Court, whereby, the University was directed to conduct a re-evaluation of the petitioner's marks script by comprising an expert 3 member committee.

The High Court overturned the decision, noting that the university's evaluation process adhered to established guidelines, including mandatory digital marking tools. Citing Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. Yerra Trinath & Ors the Court held that third-party evaluations are prohibited unless explicitly allowed by regulation.

The court emphasized that a third evaluation is only permissible when the initial evaluations differ by more than 20%. In this case, the difference fell below that threshold.

“The contention of the petitioner that the questions had not been evaluated, therefore, to us appears to be absolutely without any basis. Even the answer scripts perused by us do reflect that each of the questions carry the annotations, as were prescribed by the procedure, which was required to be followed by the examiners. We may clarify here that this is certainly not a case where a particular answer to a question had not been evaluated by the examiners and therefore in those circumstances, ordering reevaluation by a third examiner, as was done in the present case by the learned single Judge, would be a direction contrary to the statutory position, which does not at all permit re-evaluation by a third examiner except in a case where the variation between the marks awarded by the first two examiners exceeds 20%.”

Background:

The petitioner/student had failed the General Medicine subject and argued that her answer scripts were not evaluated properly. She pointed to a question where she received only 0.5 marks out of a possible 10. Additionally, she claimed inconsistencies between the digital record and the physical answer scripts presented in court.

The YSR University of Health Sciences, however, maintained that a double evaluation system was in place. Each paper is graded by two independent examiners who use a digital system with specific marking tools like green ticks for awarded marks and red X's for zero marks. Only papers with a discrepancy exceeding 20% between evaluations go to a third examiner. In this case, the difference between the two initial evaluations was less than 20%.

The Single Judge, upon physically examining the answer scripts, ordered a third evaluation. The judge noted discrepancies between the digital record and the physical scripts, particularly the presence of green ticks (awarded marks) on the physical copies that weren't reflected digitally.

While disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge, the Division Bench has noted, after verifying the records that all the answers of the petitioner were evaluated, and done so, in accordance with the procedure established.

“For purposes of satisfying ourselves as to whether there were any questions which had not been evaluated, the records were summoned and were produced before us. From the record, it appears that each of the answers recorded by the petitioner both in papers - I & II had been evaluated and marks allotted to the petitioner.”

The court stressed the importance of following proper procedures and adhering to statutory limitations on re-evaluation requests.

While the student expressed concerns about the fairness of her evaluation, the court found no evidence to support her claims, thus allowing the appeal filed by the University.

WRIT APPEAL NO: 877 OF 2023

Counsel for the Appellants: Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar (SC FOR Dr. NTR HEALTH University) Counsel for respondent No.1: Corpus Juris Law Panel LLP

Click Here To Read/Download Order