1. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayanrao University of Health Sciences appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

      “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting revaluation of answer sheets of MBBS First year Human Anatomy theory paper of the petitioner as bad in law and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and constitution direct the Respondents to forthwith to re-evaluate answer sheet of MBBS First Year Human Anatomy theory paper of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to verify the answer sheet of MBBS First year Human Anatomy theory paper and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

               i) The petitioner is an MBBS student studying at MNR Medical College & Hospital, having been admitted during the academic year 2024–25. The petitioner appeared for the First Year examination held in November 2025 and passed the subjects of Physiology and Biochemistry, but was declared as failed in Human Anatomy.

               ii) In the Human Anatomy examination, the petitioner secured 81 marks out of 100 in the practical examination and 78 marks in the theory examination, falling short by a marginal two marks to be declared as passed. As the petitioner could not secure the required aggregate of 50% marks in theory and practical, the petitioner was declared as failed in Human Anatomy.

               iii) Aggrieved by the result and suspecting improper evaluation, the petitioner approached the respondent University seeking verification of the answer scripts. The petitioner was informed that there is no provision for re-evaluation or personal verification of answer scripts and that only recounting is permitted. Aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent authorities to permit personal verification of the answer scripts, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

               A) The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2011 (8) SCC Page 497 in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others at Para No.18 observed as under:

               “18.… What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer books as ‘information’ and inspect them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra Board (supra) and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not alter or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of answer-books or taking certified copies thereof.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 09.01.2026 passed in W.P. No.1225 of 2026 and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner in W.P. No. 1225 of 2026.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 do not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

7. This Court opines that the Grievance Committee of the 2nd respondent University is bound to consider the request of the petitioner for revaluation of answer sheets of MBBS 1st year Human Anatomy Theory paper of the petitioner in view of the specific observations of the Apex Court Judgment (referred to and extracted above),

8. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

               (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

               (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2,

               (c) The Apex Court judgment reported in 2011 (8) SCC Page 497 (referred to and extracted above).

               (d) The order of this Court, dated 09.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.1225 of 2026.

               (e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.5 to 7 of the present order, The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 09.01.2026 passed in W.P. No. 1225 of 2026, with an observation that, as and when the petitioner approaches the Grievance Committee of the 2nd respondent University by paying the requisite fees, the petitioner shall be permitted to reverify petitioner’s answer sheet of MBBS 1st year Human Anatomy Theory Paper, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment (referred to and extracted above). However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.