| |
CDJ 2026 TSHC 133
|
| Court : High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 8618 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI |
| Parties : Kasireddy Manjunath Reddy Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: B. Balaji, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Medical Health FW. |
| Date of Judgment : 24-03-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India
2. Catch Words:
- Mandamus
- Revaluation
- Verification
- Natural Justice
3. Summary:
The petitioner, a MBBS first‑year student, challenged the university’s refusal to re‑evaluate his Human Anatomy answer sheet, alleging violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and principles of natural justice. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the university to re‑evaluate and allow personal verification of his answer script. The university contended that its regulations permit only recounting or review, not re‑evaluation, but agreed to allow verification upon payment of the prescribed fee. The Court examined the submissions and found no legal bar to the petitioner’s request for verification. Consequently, the Court directed the university to re‑verify the answer sheet and to permit personal verification on payment of the requisite fee. The petition was disposed of on these terms.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting revaluation of answer sheet 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 consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith to revaluate the 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 to pass…”
2. Heard Mr. B.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.Niranjan Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health and Science appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. Case of the petitioner is that despite having made adequate preparation for the examinations and being confident of his performance, he was declared unsuccessful in the MBBS First Year examinations in the subject of Human Anatomy. Being aggrieved by the said result and believing that his answer scripts were not properly evaluated, he submitted an application to respondent No.2 seeking revaluation of his answer scripts, but respondent No.2-University informed him that revaluation was not allowed and only recounting is permitted. Though he had submitted an application for recounting, his result was not changed. As such, he requested for personal verification of his answer scripts, however, respondent No.2-University informed him that the same was not permitted. It is his further case that he had submitted an application, dated 06.03.2026 to respondent No.2-University seeking revaluation of his answer scripts, but the same has not been acted upon by respondent No.2-University till date. Aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to direct respondent No.2 to revaluate the petitioner’s answer scripts pertaining to the MBBS First Year theory examinations in the subject of Human Anatomy and also permit the petitioner to verify his answer script of MBBS First Year Human Anatomy personally, subject to payment of requisite fee, as per the Rules.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that as per the regulations of respondent No.2-University, there is no provision for revaluation of answer scripts and that only re-totalling of the marks is permissible, or in specific cases, a review of the answer scripts is permissible. He further submits that recounting of the petitioner’s answer script was already done and there was “no change” in the marks. He further submits that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the result of the recounting, he is at liberty to approach the Grievance Committee of respondent No.2-University by submitting an application in the prescribed form along with the requisite fee. However, learned Standing Counsel reported no objection in directing respondent No.2 to re-verify the petitioner’s answer script relating to the MBBS First Year Human Anatomy and in permitting the petitioner to verify his answer script of MBBS First Year Human Anatomy personally, subject to payment of the requisite fee.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2-University to re-verify the petitioner’s answer script relating to the MBBS First Year theory examinations in the subject of Human Anatomy forthwith and also permit the petitioner to verify his answer script of MBBS First Year Human Anatomy personally, on payment of requisite fee, as per the Rules.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
