WP/38211/2025 of Mahalle Sushrut Ranjit Vs Union of India on 2 April 2026

132571 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION NOs: 38209 and 38211 of 2025 WRIT PETITION NO:38209 OF 2025 Between: Nookathota Anjali Goutam, D/o Dr. Uday Goutam Nookathota, Age 21, Occ. Medical Student, R/o Flat No. A-310, Kalpataru Residency 8-4-300/1/A, Ashok Marg Prem Nagar, Enagadda, Medchal Malkajgiri Dist., ...PETlTIONER ANO

Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, National Medical Commission Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka Phase-1 New Delhi 1 '10077 Under Graduate Medical Education Board, Represented by its Director, Pocket 14, Sector-8, Dwaraka Phase-1 New Delhi 't 10077

3. University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 1 10002.

4. Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth, Deemed to be University, represented by its Vice Chancellor, Suraram, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana 500055

5. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth Deemed to be University, represented by its Vice Chancellor, Suraram, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana 500055 ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the email request of the petitioner dated 27.11.2025 to conduct revaluation of petitioner's Biochemistry Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations, October-2025 in Roll No2024001001015

and 3rd respondent stating that only a re-totaling is permiss t le and final but not re-valuation of exam sheets, as illegal, arbitrary, violative ,,f the principles of natural justice, prejudiced, unconstitutional, against Artickr 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia coupled with flagrant violation of the rules. )f University Grants Commission and consequently direct the 3'd respondent to cc nduct a revaluation of the petitioner's Biochemistry Answer Scripts in First Year full iBS Supplementary University Examinations, October-2025 in Roll No.2024001(r( 1015 with different set of evaluators. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr; rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mav re pleased Pending disposal of the above writ petition, it is most respectfully pra) sd that this Hon'ble Court may direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a revaluat r n of the petitioners Biochemistry Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS Supptr mentary University Examinations, October-2025 in Roll No. 2024001001015 r,ith different set of evaluators. WRIT PETITION NO: 38211 OF 202s Between: Mahalle Sushrut Ranjit, S/o Ranjit Suresh Mahalle, Rl/o.Duplex No.1'1, Har Ram Hara Krishna Society Akola District, Maharashtra State. Age 20, ( cc: Medical Student, , App. Ur: av Mangal Karyalay, ,..PETITIONER AND

Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, National fuk dical Commission Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka Phase-1 New Delhi 11OO7 '. Under Graduate Medical Education Board, Representec )y its Director, Pocket 14, Sector-8, Dwaraka Phase-1 New Delhi 11OO7 t. University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zir * Marg, New Delhi - 110002. Malla-Reddy.Vishwavidyapeeth, Deemed to be Universiir , Represented by its Vice Chancellor, Suraram, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Te langana 500055. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, Malla Reddy Vishv avidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Represented by its Vice Chanc :llor, Suraram, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana 500055. .,.RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, Writ, or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the inaction of the respondents in conducting revaluation of petitioner's Anatomy Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations, November-2025 in Roll No.2024001001094 and 3rd respondent stating that only a re-totaling is permissible and final but not re-valuation of exam sheets, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, prejudiced, u nconstitutional, against Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia coupled with flagrant violation of the rules of University Grants Commission and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a revaluation of the petitioners Biochemistry Answer Scripts in First Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations, November-2O25 in Roll No. 2024001001094 with different set of evaluators. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may direct the 3rd respondent to conduct a revaluation of the petitioners Anatomy Answer_scripts in First Year MBBS Supplementary University Examinations, Nov- 2025 in Roll No. 2024001001 094 with different set of evaluators Counsel for the Petitioner in both the writ petitions: SR!. SRIKANTH CHINTALA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 ln Both the Writ Petitions : SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUWSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3 in both the writ petitions: SRI P. I-AXMAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos 4 & 5 in both the writ petitions: SRI RAVINDER REDDY MUPPU The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI- \NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SII DEVI WRIT PETITION Nos.38209 and 38211 ot ','.O25 2No APRIL

W.P. No.38209 of 2025 Between: Nookathota Anjali Goutam . P -. itioner W.P. No. 38211 of 2O25 Mahalle Sushrut Ranjit AND Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, National Medical Commission And 4 others R(x pondents These writ petitions are filed seeking the following elief "issuc al order. ulit, or direction more particularly in l : llature ol Writ of \4andamus or any other appropri I e wrrt. dr'claring, thc ir.raction ol thc respondents. l considelinq thc crnlil request of the pctitioncr da t J

27. I 1.2015 to conduct rcvaluation of petitioner s Biochemistry Answcr Scriprs in F-irst Year Mll I j supplcmentary [,tnivcrsity Examinations. October-](l 5 in Roll \o.202400 1001015 in W.P.No.l8209 oi t( . j and in conducting rcvaluation of petitioner's Hunrt n Anatomr .{nsrrel Scripts in First Year Ii.{ll Ll j Supplenrcntary University ExaminaLions. Novembe- 2025 in liotl No.l0l-100 I 001094 in W.P.No.i82 t I f' 201I and 3'd respondcnt stating that only a re-totalinl s pennissiblc and final but not rc-valuation of exam shcr:t ;. as illegal. arbitrarv, violativc of principles oI narr r rl justice. prciudiced. Lrnconstitutiona[, against Article 4 und 2l ol tltc Crr stitrrtion rrl lndia coupletJ with llagr r rr r iolation irl thc nrlcs ol' [ ]nivcrsity Grants Comntiss r n and conscqLrcntlr dircct thc i"l rcspondent to cou(lu(t a revaluarion of the pctitioncrs Answer Scripts in I r il

COMMON ORDER:

.I

.s ,"! Year N4BBS Supplernentar; [Jniversitl, Examinations in Biochemistry and I{uman.\natomy, r.vith dif'ferent set of evaluators and pass such other order . . "

2. Since the relief prayed for in both the writ petitions is similar in nature, these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order

3. Heard Mr.Chintala Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Ravinder Reddy Muppu, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the record

4. Case of the petitioners is that despite having made adequate preparation for the examinations and being confident of their performance, they were declared unsuccessful in the MBBS First Year examinations in the subject of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy. Being aggrieved by the said result and belaeving that their answer scripts were not properly evaluated, they approached the respondent authorities seeking access to their answer scripts and requesting revaluation by a second set of valuators. However, the respondent authorities rejected their request and instead directed them to apply for re-totaling of marks.

5. Further case of the petitioners is that as per lt e applicable rules, a student who fails in any subject in the First year MBBS course, is not eligible for promotion to the next acaderr .ric year and will be detained in the same year Notably, such a st- .rgenl rule is not applicable to the subsequent four academic years rf the MBBS course. ln these circumstances, the petitioners cont 3 rd that they have no opportunity to clear backlogs, while progressing academically, as promotion to the next year is strrct y contingent upon passing all subjects Therefore, they specifically pleaded the respondents to re-evaluate their answer scripts, but t rere was no response from the respondents. Subsequenily, when 1t e petitioners approached the respondent-university, they were oli lly informed that re-evaluatron is not permissible and only re_total 19 of marks can be done. Hence, lhe writ petition rs filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits :hat despite repeated requests for revaruation of the petitioners' e r swer scripts pe(aining to the MBBS First year theory examina:ions in the subjects of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy by a ciferent set of evaluators, the respondent-university has failed to ;onsider the same. He further submits that the respondent-L r iversity has conducted the valuation of the answer scripts only. thrc Jgh a single evaluator, unlike other State Universities where "raluation is r undertaken by multiple evaluators, typically three, to ensure accuracy and fairness. Such a system of single valuation increases the likelihood of errors and any erroneous assessment would attain finality without further scrutiny, thereby depriving the petitioners of any opportunity for correction. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners by a different set of evaluators and also permit the petitioners to verify their answer scripts of MBBS First Year Biochemistry and Human Anatomy personally, subject to payment of requisite fee, as Per the Rules.

7. On the other hand. learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, by way cf filing an Evaluation Response Sheet, ffied 08 01.2026, submits that the double valuation of the petitionerA' theory answer scripts was carried out independently by two eligible external examiners, who were not affiliated with Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth, in compliance with the norms prescribed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) He fu(her submits that recounting of the petitioners answer scripts was already done andtherewas..nochange''inthemarks'HefurtherSubmitsthatif the petitioners are still aggrieved by the result of the recounting' they are at liberty to approach the Grievance Committee of respondent- University by submitting an application in the prescribed form along

with the requisite fee. However, learned Standing Cour;el reported no objection in directing the respondent-University to e-verify the petitioners answer scripts relating to the MBBS First year Biochemistry and Human Anatomy and in permitting th ) petitioners to verify their answer scripts of MBBS First year Bioctemistry and Human Anatomy personally, subject to payment of the -, rquisite fee.

8. ln view of the submissions made by the lear red counsel appearing on both sides. this Court deems it approp-i rte to direct respondent-U niversity to re-verify the petitioners an;wer scripts relating to the MBBS First year theory examinations irr the subjects of Biochemistry and Human Anatomy forthwith and als I permit the petitioners to verrfy their answer scripts of MBB:! p;1s1 y""r. Biochemistry and Human Anatomy personally, on payment of requisite fee, as per the Rules.

9. With the above directions, both the Writ F etitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand clo ;ed. //TRI'E COPY// SD/- A. JAYASREE AS:; STANT REGISTRAR (, SECTION OFFICER To,

The Secretary, National tVled.ical C_ommission Union of I dia, pocket 14, sector B, Dwaraka phase_.l ruew b"ini i-r-ti6i7""'"" "' The Director, Under Graduate-M_e-dical Education Boarc, pocket 14, Sector_g, Dwaraka Phase-.| New Delhi 11OO7l I :... .. ...o..

-i& -*J

I

3. University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.

4. The Vice Chancellor, Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth, Deemed to be University, Suraram, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana 500055

5. The Vice Chancellor, CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS' Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Suraram, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana 500055

6. One CC to SRl. SRIKANTH CHINTALA , Advocate IOPUCI

7. One CC to SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRI RAVI NDER REDDY MUPPU, Advocate IOPUC]

7. One CC to SRI P. LAXMAN RAO, Advocate [OPUCI

8. Two CD Copies DAN Ek

HIGH COURT DATED:0210412026

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.38209 AND 38211 ot 2025 ( )C TODAY I '..:: . "', i.,\) l L: .' /., /' .:' li'r ti - ii 11: \,\ i: \l,r 0 fr Xi,n Cr lrw lril l:- i/ ',,-.. I DISPOSING OF THE BOTH WRIT PETIT'IONS WITHOUT COSTS

J