HC grants relief to MBBS student, directs NTRUHS to give 1 compensatory mark for question paper error

Amaravati: Granting relief to a final-year MBBS student, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Dr NTR University of Health Sciences to award her one additional mark after noting that due to the repetition of a multiple-choice question in the Ophthalmology examination, the student was unfairly deprived of an opportunity to answer a different question.

Observing that the petitioner-student could not be put to a disadvantageous position for no fault on her part, the bench directed the University to add one mark to the petitioner in the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology Examination held on 02.04.2026, and declare her as "Passed" in the concerned subject and also issued directions to allow the student to commence her mandatory internship training.

"...the candidate who has given wrong answer in the case of repeated question is in a disadvantageous position than the person who had given the right answer. Had the question been not 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 High Court held.

"In view of the foregoing, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to add one mark to the petitioner in the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology Examination (Set-C) held on 02.04.2026 and declare the petitioner as “PASSED” in the Ophthalmology subject. Consequently, the 4th respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner to allow her to commence the Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI)," ordered the HC bench comprising Justice Kiranmayee Mandava.

Case Background: 

The petitioner, a final-year MBBS student from Kurnool Medical College, failed the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology Examination by a narrow margin. Therefore, she filed the plea before the HC seeking directions on the medical college and the University to add one grace mark, arguing that a technical error had occurred in printing the multiple-choice questions.

It was argued by the petitioner that in the Set-C question paper conducted on April 2, 2026, Question No. 5 had been repeated as Question No. 7 because of a printing error. The petitioner answered to Question No. 5 wrong. Since she had chosen the same answer for question No. 7, she lost her mark for that question as well.

The petitioner argued that the repetition of questions deprived her of a fair chance of securing the appropriate marks. The counsel for the petitioner contended that in such circumstances, a direction to the authorities to grant one grace mark is warranted and the same would declare the petitioner as passed.

On the other hand, the counsel for the University and controller of examinations argued that the University had issued a notification on 28.04.2026 inviting objections on preliminary key, through online mode. The petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to raise objections to the multiple choice questions in Third Professional MBBS Part-II examinations. The petitioner did not avail the same, however, directly approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to grant one grace mark, which according to the University, was not tenable.

Observations by High Court: 

The Court noted that the examinations attended by the petitioner were regular examinations for final year MBBS Course (Part-II). In the case of regular examinations, in respect of multiple choice question and answers, where the same question has been repeated for the second time, a candidate who answered the first question(s) incorrectly is placed at a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis a candidate who answered the first question correctly, as he secures an additional mark for the repeated question.

In contrast, the other candidate who gave the wrong answer to the first question loses one mark. To ensure fairness, the candidate who has been declared unsuccessful should also be awarded one compensatory mark on account of the repeated question, if that one mark makes all the difference in passing in the examination, it further noted.

At this outset, the Court observed, "Unlike competitive examinations and rank based examinations where award of additional marks to all candidates may alter the interse merit and ranking, regular examinations would assess whether a candidate has attained the prescribed qualifying standard. Therefore, in the facts of the case, awarding a compensatory mark in a regular examination to neutralize the prejudice caused by repetition of question would not adversely affect marks secured or ranking of other candidates."

The High Court observed that in this case, if the repeated question is excluded from consideration, the candidate’s percentage of marks is calculated; the same would be 39.39%.

"The percentage marks to declare one as pass in the present case is 40%. In the light of the same, even if no grace mark(s) as a matter of course are given to a wrong answer, this Court is of the view that on account of the procedural lapses on the part of the respondents in repeating the questions, they cannot shirk or evade their responsibility by saying that to the repeated question also they have awarded marks if the answer given to the first question was the right answer. The lapses on the part of the respondents confers advantage to the one set of candidates and causes corresponding disadvantage to another set of candidates," the Court noted at this outset.

Opining that liberal approach should be taken in this case, the bench further observed, "In the present situation, if the repeated question is excluded from the total marks, the total marks for the ophthalmology examination paper would be 99, the petitioner had secured 39.39% as elaborated above, therefore, this Court is of the view that even if 40% is the qualifying percentage that one should get to qualify/pass in the examination, the petitioner is falling short of the qualifying pass percentage by only 0.61% in the final examination. Such a marginal short fall in the facts of the case warrants liberal approach in granting appropriate relief."

Accordingly, the bench directed the authorities to add one mark to the petitioner and declare her as passed and allow her commence the mandatory internship training.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/15/duvvuru-nithya-reddy-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-others-359793.pdf

Also Read: Lost time in NEET! HC grants grace marks, orders NTA to create redressal committee