logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 039 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 1217 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Parties : Banothu Mahesh Karthik Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Education Hyderabad & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Sharada Devi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader Education.
Date of Judgment : 23-01-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21 – Writ of Mandamus – Revaluation of Answer Sheets – Grace Marks – Medical Education – Writ Petition – Challenge to failure in MBBS Physiology subject by shortfall of 2 marks and non-consideration of request for revaluation/moderation.

Court Held – Writ Petition disposed of – Grievance Committee of University directed to consider petitioner’s request for revaluation upon application and payment of requisite fees – Right to access evaluated answer sheets recognised in light of Supreme Court judgment – Petitioner permitted to seek reverification of answer sheet – Relief granted in terms of earlier order of High Court – No order as to costs.

[Paras 4, 5, 7, 8]

Cases Cited:
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497

Keywords
Revaluation – Answer Sheet Inspection – Grace Marks – MBBS Examination – Marginal Failure – Writ of Mandamus – Article 14 – Article 21 – Educational Rights – Grievance Committee
Judgment :-

1. Heard Smt. M.Sharada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education 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 pass appropriate orders or issue directions or issue any appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2, namely Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences in declaring the petitioner as failed in the subject of Physiology by a marginal shortfall of 2 marks despite the petitioner having answered the examination diligently and in accordance with the prescribed syllabus and in not considering the petitioners case for grant of grace marks / moderation / reevaluation despite the petitioner having cleared all other subjects and the failure resulting in grave and irreparable loss of the petitioners medical career as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent University to forthwith consider the petitioner’s case for grant of grace marks / moderation / re-evaluation in accordance with the applicable regulations and pass appropriate orders within a strict time-bound period preferably within a few days, so as to prevent loss of one academic year and medical seat pending disposal of the writ petition and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that The petitioner is an MBBS student admitted to MediCiti Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, on 20.09.2023. In the MBBS First Year Examinations conducted by the respondent, the petitioner appeared for Biochemistry, Anatomy, and Physiology, bearing Hall Ticket No. 2301009013. While the petitioner cleared all other subjects, the petitioner was declared failed in Physiology (Theory) by a very marginal shortfall of only two (2) marks in the fourth and final attempt, despite having answered the examination diligently. This failure would adversely affect the petitioner’s career. The petitioner has therefore filed the present Writ Petition seeking the grant of grace marks/moderation/revaluation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. 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.”

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 07.01.2026 passed in W.P. No.585 of 2026 and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner in W.P. No. 585 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 1 st year Physiology 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 07.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.585 of 2026.

               (e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.4 to 7 of the present order, The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 07.01.2026 passed in W.P. No. 585 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 Physiology 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.
 
  CDJLawJournal