PG exam evaluation row: Telangana doctors' body seeks KNRUHS audit, revaluation, gracemarks

Hyderabad: A doctors' body in the state has urged the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) to undertake a comprehensive review and audit of the postgraduate examination evaluation system and address serious concerns regarding disparities in theory evaluation, final correction, practical assessment and declaration of final marks.

Submitting a representation to KNRUHS, Telangana Junior Doctors' Association (T-JUDA) sought limited grace marks, recounting and introduction of a transparent revaluation mechanism for eligible PG 2023 batch candidates who have narrowly missed the prescribed qualifying marks.

Disparities after final correction and practical marks

The association in the representation said that it received concerns regarding significant variations in marks after completion of theory evaluation, final correction/moderation and updating of practical marks. In some cases, students who have performed satisfactorily in theory examinations have reportedly received unexpectedly low or failing marks in practical examinations.

The association said that such cases warrant a systematic audit and statistical analysis by KNRUHS, rather than simply stating that the examination system is transparent.

Therefore, it recommended the university to analyse theory marks before and after final correction/moderation, subject-wise and examiner-wise variations in marks, distribution of practical marks awarded by different examiners, cases where theory and practical performance show unusually large discrepancies, failure rates and unusually low or high marking patterns of individual examiners, complaints received from students and the outcome of enquiries and whether students who have attempted relevant, point-wise answers are receiving marks proportionate to the content of their answers.

Need for an independent examination audit

T-JUDA demanded that KNRUHS conduct a comprehensive examination audit and publish appropriate aggregate and anonymised findings while protecting the confidentiality of students and examiners.

"Such an audit would help identify whether there are systematic variations in evaluation and whether additional safeguards are required. The association reiterates that the purpose of an audit is not to undermine examiners or academic standards, but to ensure consistency, fairness, transparency and accountability in postgraduate assessment," the association said.

Concern regarding theory–practical discrepancies

It also highlighted the Gandhi Paediatric examination issue, in which concerns were raised over an apparent disparity between students’ strong performance in theory papers and their failure in practical examinations. 

Further, T-JUDA called on the University to review such cases by examining the evaluation process, examiner-wise marking patterns and relevant records. 

TJUDA further said that if an enquiry establishes procedural irregularities, arbitrary evaluation or violations of examination norms, appropriate action should be taken against the concerned examiner under University regulations, including restricting or removing them from future examination duties where warranted.

Complaints and enquiries must result in appropriate action

T-JUDA said that students and the association have submitted complaints and representations, with enquiries reportedly initiated in some cases. However, it said students and their representatives need clarity on the findings of these enquiries and the action taken afterwards.

"An enquiry should not end merely with the submission of a report. Where an enquiry establishes wrongdoing or procedural lapses, appropriate corrective or disciplinary action should follow. Similarly, where allegations are not substantiated, the University should communicate the outcome through an appropriate mechanism so that affected students are not left without clarity. Transparency must be demonstrated through data and accountability," the association pointed out.

It strongly believes that merely stating that the University follows a transparent examination system is not sufficient when students raise specific and repeated concerns.

"Transparency must be demonstrated through an accountable mechanism for receiving complaints, conducting impartial enquiries, analysing examination data and communicating appropriate outcomes. The Vice-Chancellor and competent University authorities should respond constructively to representations from students and their associations and provide a defined mechanism through which examination-related grievances can be examined," said the association. 

Recurring examination concerns require systemic correction

The doctors' body emphasized that the concerns being raised by postgraduate students should not be treated as merely an isolated or batch-specific issue.

The association has been receiving concerns regarding examination-related discrepancies across different examination cycles. Therefore, T-JUDA called for systemic corrective measures rather than treating each year’s complaints as isolated incidents.

It demanded the KNRUHS to:

1. Conduct a comprehensive audit of theory and practical evaluation in PG examinations.

2. Analyse examiner-wise and subject-wise variations in marks, particularly unusually high failure rates or unusually low marking patterns.

3. Examine disparities arising after final correction/moderation and updating of practical marks.

4. Review cases involving extreme disparity between theory and practical performance.

5. Provide the existing recounting facility to eligible candidates in a timely manner.

6. Introduce revaluation of postgraduate theory answer scripts with appropriate safeguards and eligibility criteria.

7. Consider independent second evaluation wherever warranted.

8. Explore validated technology- or AI-assisted evaluation tools as quality-assurance mechanisms, while retaining qualified human examiners and appropriate academic oversight.

9. Conduct appropriate enquiries into complaints concerning examination processes and ensure that substantiated violations result in proportionate action.

10. Where an examiner is found, after due enquiry, to have committed serious examination irregularities, restrict or withdraw future examination duties, wherever permissible under University regulations.

11. Provide a time-bound response to representations submitted by T-JUDA and individual postgraduate students.

12. Consider limited grace marks up to 4–5 marks, wherever permissible under applicable regulations, for eligible candidates who have narrowly missed the qualifying requirement.

13. Establish a permanent examination grievance and audit mechanism to identify and prevent recurring deficiencies in future examinations.

Also read- Doctors' body seeks governor's intervention over UP MBBS bonded doctors' remuneration hike demand