Introduction:
In a case highlighting the importance of fairness and transparency in academic evaluation, the Telangana High Court recently allowed an MBBS student to approach the grievance redressal mechanism of the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences for re-verification of her answer sheet after she failed a crucial subject by a narrow margin of one mark. The decision was delivered by Justice Surepalli Nanda, who disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the University’s Grievance Committee and seek retotalling and re-verification of marks in the subject of Human Anatomy.
The petitioner, Harshini Kishore, a first-year MBBS student studying under Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, had appeared for the first-year MBBS examinations conducted in November 2025. When the results were declared on December 23, 2025, she discovered that she had failed the Human Anatomy paper by a margin of only one mark. Such a narrow margin often carries significant consequences for medical students because failing a core subject requires reappearing for the examination, thereby delaying academic progress.
After the results were declared, the petitioner applied online for re-verification of marks on December 26, 2025, hoping that any potential calculation or evaluation error could be corrected. However, according to her, the University authorities, particularly the Controller of Examinations, failed to act on the request. Despite submitting another representation on December 30, 2025, no steps were taken to process her application.
Faced with this administrative inaction, the student approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus, requesting the Court to declare the authorities’ failure to act as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. She also sought a direction requiring the University to consider her request for re-verification of the answer sheet.
After examining the circumstances, the High Court observed that the petitioner had indeed applied for re-verification but that the authorities had not taken any action on her request. The Court therefore granted her liberty to approach the University’s grievance committee and directed that her answer sheet be subjected to retotalling of marks upon submission of representation and payment of the requisite fee as per the rules.
The judgment reflects the judiciary’s cautious yet supportive approach in matters involving academic evaluation. While courts generally avoid interfering directly in academic decisions, they ensure that institutional mechanisms for grievance redressal function effectively and fairly, especially when students’ academic futures are at stake.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, argued that the inaction of the University authorities in responding to her request for re-verification was unjustified and violated the principles of fairness governing academic administration.
The counsel explained that the petitioner was a diligent medical student pursuing her first-year MBBS course under the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences. She had appeared for the first-year examinations conducted in November 2025 and had expected to pass the Human Anatomy paper. However, when the results were announced on December 23, 2025, she discovered that she had failed the subject by only one mark.
The counsel emphasized that such a narrow margin raised a legitimate concern regarding the possibility of calculation errors, totalling mistakes, or inadvertent evaluation discrepancies. Given the significant academic consequences of failing an MBBS subject, the petitioner exercised her right to apply for re-verification.
According to the petitioner, she submitted an online application for re-verification on December 26, 2025 in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the University. Subsequently, she also submitted a representation dated December 30, 2025 requesting the authorities to consider her application and verify her answer sheet.
However, despite these steps, the Controller of Examinations failed to take any action on her request. The petitioner argued that such inaction was arbitrary and amounted to denial of her legitimate right to seek verification of the marks.
The petitioner further contended that the University’s failure to respond to her application violated the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that administrative authorities must act fairly and reasonably when dealing with requests affecting an individual’s rights or interests.
The counsel also emphasized the serious academic consequences faced by medical students who fail a subject. In the MBBS course structure, failing a subject often means repeating examinations and potentially delaying the student’s progression to the next academic year. Therefore, ensuring accuracy and transparency in the evaluation process becomes especially important.
The petitioner did not seek any extraordinary relief from the Court, such as direct alteration of marks or judicial re-evaluation of the answer sheet. Instead, she merely requested that the Court direct the University authorities to consider her application for re-verification and take appropriate action.
Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the authorities as illegal and directing them to process her representation and verify the answer sheet.
Arguments Presented by the Respondents:
The respondents, represented by Sri T. Sharath, Standing Counsel for KNRUHS, opposed the petition and defended the University’s procedures regarding examination evaluation and verification.
The counsel submitted that universities follow a structured and regulated system for conducting examinations, evaluating answer sheets, and declaring results. These procedures are designed to ensure uniformity and maintain academic standards.
The respondents contended that the University already had a grievance redressal mechanism in place for addressing students’ concerns regarding examination results. Through this mechanism, students could seek retotalling or re-verification of marks in accordance with the rules prescribed by the University.
It was argued that the petitioner should first avail herself of this institutional mechanism instead of directly approaching the High Court.
The respondents further emphasized that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with academic matters. Judicial intervention in academic evaluation could potentially disrupt the functioning of educational institutions and undermine the autonomy of universities.
The University’s counsel therefore requested that the Court dispose of the petition in a manner that respects the institutional procedures established by the University.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After hearing the submissions of both sides and examining the record, the Telangana High Court delivered its order addressing the issue in a balanced and pragmatic manner.
Justice Surepalli Nanda first observed that the petitioner had indeed applied for re-verification of her answer sheet shortly after the declaration of the results. The Court noted that the application had been submitted in December 2025, yet the Controller of Examinations had not taken any action on it.
The Court observed that such inaction could lead to unnecessary hardship for students, particularly when their academic progress depends on the outcome of the examination.
At the same time, the Court recognized that universities possess specialized expertise in academic matters and therefore courts generally refrain from interfering directly in the evaluation process.
Instead of ordering immediate re-evaluation, the Court decided to direct the petitioner to approach the University’s grievance redressal committee, which is the appropriate forum for examining such complaints.
The Court therefore disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the Grievance Committee requesting re-verification of her answer sheet in the subject of Human Anatomy.
The Court directed that this representation should be submitted within two weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
Additionally, the Court clarified that the petitioner must pay the requisite fee as prescribed under the University’s rules when submitting the representation.
Upon receiving the representation and the required fee, the Grievance Committee was directed to permit retotalling of the marks in the Human Anatomy paper.
The Court further clarified that if the petitioner continued to have grievances even after the retotalling process, she would be free to pursue appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
By issuing these directions, the High Court ensured that the petitioner’s grievance would be considered through the institutional framework established by the University while simultaneously respecting the autonomy of the academic body.