Sura Vinshi Priya v. Dr.Ntr University Of Health Sciences

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.29480 of 2015 ORDER :

Heard Sri S. Rahul Reddy, counsel for petitioner and Sri T. Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1.

2. This Writ Petition was filed by petitioner complaining that evaluation of petitioner's answer script in the subject Charaka Samhitha (Uttaradha) in B.A.M.S. examination conducted in April/May, 2015 awarding 'zero' marks against four questions nos.9, 10, 15 and 6, is arbitrary.

3. On 14.09.2015, in WPMP.No.38200 of 2015 this Court passed the following order :

"Since the matter involves re-evaluation of the answer scripts, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent-University fairly submits that the petitioner can submit a representation to the respondents 1 and 2. On receipt of such representation, the matter would be referred to the Grievance Committee, which will decide the issue.

In that view of the matter, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible and on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall refer the matter to the Grievance Committee for its decision. The entire exercise including the opinion of the Grievance Committee shall be completed within 10 days from today. Post after two weeks."

4. To-day the learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent has produced before me proceedings Lr.No.15/E4(b)/court/BAMS/2015 dt.08.10.2015, addressed by 1st respondent to the learned Standing Counsel for 1st

respondent, stating that the evaluation of petitioner's answer script was done properly and then only marks were awarded. It is also recorded in the minutes produced by the learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent that the petitioner was awarded 'three' marks for question No.6, and no marks were awarded for question nos.9, 10, 15 since the answers given by petitioner were not relevant.

5. Although the counsel for petitioner contended that this assessment by the Grievance Committee of 1st respondent is not correct, since this Court has no expertise in the subject in question, and since the rules do not permit re-correction of the answer script, no relief can be granted to petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 27.11.2015 Ndr/*