Article 14 & 21 | Compensatory Mark Mandated for Repeated MCQ in MBBS Exam to Prevent Procedural Prejudice : AP HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has intervened in a case involving a technical error in a medical examination, directing the award of a compensatory mark to a final-year MBBS student who was disadvantaged by the repetition of a multiple-choice question. The judgment underscores the principle that procedural lapses by examination authorities cannot prejudice a candidate’s right to fair assessment, particularly when such lapses result in a marginal shortfall in qualifying marks.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Konduru Sai Bhargav, a final-year MBBS student at Guntur Medical College, appeared for the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology Examination (Set-C Paper) conducted on 02.04.2026. During the examination, it was discovered that MCQ No. 5 and MCQ No. 7 were identical, effectively reducing the total number of unique questions from 20 to 19. The petitioner answered both questions identically, but since his answer to MCQ No. 5 was incorrect, he lost marks on both questions. This technical error deprived him of the opportunity to secure an additional mark, resulting in his failure to meet the 40% qualifying threshold by a mere 0.61%.

Key Facts

• The petitioner’s roll number: 21M102002099
• Examination date: 02.04.2026
• Total marks for the paper: 100 (20 MCQs, 5 marks each)
• Due to repetition, effective total marks: 99 (19 unique MCQs)
• Petitioner’s marks: 39/99 (39.39%)
• Qualifying percentage: 40%
• Shortfall: 0.61%
• The university invited objections to the preliminary key via a notification dated 28.04.2026, but the petitioner did not raise any objections and directly approached the High Court.

Procedural History

• 02.04.2026: Petitioner appeared for the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology Examination
• 28.04.2026: Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences issued a notification inviting objections to the preliminary key
• 14957/2026: Writ Petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus
• IA No. 1 of 2026: Interim application filed seeking provisional permission to commence Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI) pending final adjudication

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the respondents’ failure to award a compensatory mark due to the repeated MCQ was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
2. A direction to the respondents to award one compensatory mark to the petitioner, thereby declaring him passed in the Ophthalmology subject.
3. A direction to the 4th respondent (Principal, Guntur Medical College) to provisionally permit the petitioner to commence his CRRI from 25.05.2026, along with his batchmates.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the court was whether examination authorities are obligated to award compensatory marks to candidates disadvantaged by technical errors, such as repeated MCQs, in regular qualifying examinations, particularly when such errors result in a marginal shortfall in meeting the passing criteria.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended:

• The repetition of MCQ No. 5 as MCQ No. 7 deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to secure full marks.
• The petitioner’s incorrect answer to MCQ No. 5 was replicated for MCQ No. 7, resulting in the loss of two marks - one for his mistake and another due to the respondents’ error.
• The petitioner’s marks fell short of the 40% qualifying threshold by only 0.61%, warranting a liberal approach in granting relief.
• The respondents’ failure to rectify the error was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, as it placed the petitioner at a disadvantage without fault on his part.

For the Respondents

Ms. Tata Venkata Sridevi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences and Controller of Examinations), argued:

• The university had issued a notification on 28.04.2026 inviting objections to the preliminary key, providing the petitioner an opportunity to raise concerns.
• The petitioner did not avail this opportunity and instead directly approached the High Court.
• Awarding a compensatory mark was not tenable, as the university’s examination rules did not provide for such relief in cases of technical errors.

The Court's Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of the principles governing fair assessment in regular examinations, distinguishing them from competitive or rank-based examinations. Key observations included:

1. Nature of Regular Examinations: The court noted that regular examinations, such as the Final MBBS Part-II, are designed to assess whether a candidate has attained the prescribed qualifying standard. Unlike competitive examinations, where awarding additional marks to one candidate may alter the inter-se merit, regular examinations focus on absolute qualification. Thus, awarding a compensatory mark to neutralize prejudice caused by a technical error would not adversely affect other candidates.

2. Prejudice Caused by Repeated MCQ: The court observed that the repetition of MCQ No. 5 as MCQ No. 7 placed the petitioner in a disadvantageous position. Had the question not been repeated, the petitioner would have had the opportunity to answer a new question, potentially securing an additional mark. Instead, he lost two marks - one for his incorrect answer and another due to the respondents’ error.

3. Marginal Shortfall and Liberal Approach: The court calculated that if the repeated question were excluded, the petitioner’s marks would be 39/99 (39.39%), falling short of the 40% qualifying threshold by only 0.61%. In such cases, where the shortfall is marginal and attributable to a procedural lapse by the respondents, the court held that a liberal approach was warranted to ensure fairness.

4. Responsibility of Examination Authorities: The court emphasized that examination authorities cannot evade responsibility for technical errors by arguing that marks were awarded based on the candidate’s answers. The respondents’ lapses conferred an unfair advantage to some candidates while causing a corresponding disadvantage to others, including the petitioner.

5. Constitutional Safeguards: The court reiterated that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution guarantee fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions. The respondents’ failure to address the technical error violated these principles, as it deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to qualify.

"The lapses on the part of the respondents confer advantage to one set of candidates and cause corresponding disadvantage to another set of candidates. As observed above, the candidate who has given a wrong answer in the case of a repeated question is in a disadvantageous position than the person who had given the right answer. Had the question not been repeated, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to face the new question. Thus, in the present facts, the petitioner had lost two marks - one for his mistake and another for no mistake on his part. Therefore, he cannot be put to a disadvantageous position for no fault on his part."

The Verdict

The court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:

1. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were directed to add one compensatory mark to the petitioner’s score in the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology Examination (Set-C) held on 02.04.2026.
2. The petitioner was to be declared as “PASSED” in the Ophthalmology subject.
3. The 4th respondent (Principal, Guntur Medical College) was directed to permit the petitioner to commence his Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI).
4. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Compensatory Marks for Technical Errors

This judgment establishes that examination authorities must address technical errors, such as repeated MCQs, by awarding compensatory marks where such errors result in a marginal shortfall in qualifying marks. Practitioners can rely on this precedent to argue for fairness in assessment, particularly in cases where procedural lapses by authorities prejudice candidates.

• Key Takeaway: Courts are likely to intervene where a candidate’s failure to qualify is attributable to a technical error by the examination authority, especially when the shortfall is marginal (e.g., less than 1%).

Distinction Between Regular and Competitive Examinations

The court drew a critical distinction between regular qualifying examinations and competitive/rank-based examinations. In regular examinations, the focus is on absolute qualification, and awarding compensatory marks does not affect the inter-se merit of other candidates.

• Implication: Authorities cannot justify inaction on technical errors by citing concerns about ranking or merit in regular examinations. The primary consideration is whether the candidate has met the qualifying standard.

Constitutional Safeguards in Examination Disputes

The judgment reinforces that Articles 14 and 21 apply to examination processes, mandating fairness, non-arbitrariness, and procedural justice. Examination authorities must ensure that their actions do not unfairly disadvantage candidates due to lapses on their part.

• Actionable Insight: Candidates aggrieved by technical errors can invoke constitutional remedies under Article 226 to seek redress, particularly when the error results in irreparable harm to their academic or professional prospects.