AP High Court Directs University To Award Compensatory Marks To MBBS Student Deprived Due To Repetition Of Questions

Allowing the plea of a final-year MBBS student, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences to award her one additional mark after finding that the repetition of a multiple-choice question in the Ophthalmology examination had unfairly deprived her of an opportunity to answer a different question. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123]

The Court held that a candidate in a regular qualifying examination cannot be denied a fair opportunity because of a procedural lapse committed by the examining authority.

Justice Kiranmayee Mandava was hearing a writ petition filed by a final-year MBBS student seeking a direction to the University to award one compensatory mark in the Final MBBS Part-II Ophthalmology examination, declare her as "passed" in the subject and permit her to commence her Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI).

The Court observed that the petitioner could not be placed at a disadvantage for a mistake committed by the University. It observed:

“As observed above, 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. 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. ”

The petitioner contended that Question No. 5 in the Set-C paper had been repeated as Question No. 7, effectively reducing the number of distinct questions from 20 to 19. Since she had answered the first question incorrectly, the repetition deprived her of the opportunity to answer a fresh question and she ultimately fell short of the qualifying marks by a narrow margin. 

The University opposed the petition, stating that it had invited objections to the preliminary answer key through an online notification and that the petitioner had failed to avail that opportunity before approaching the High Court.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court distinguished regular qualifying examinations from competitive and rank-based examinations. It observed that while awarding additional marks in competitive examinations could affect the ranking of other candidates, a regular examination is only meant to determine whether a student has secured the minimum marks required to pass.

Therefore, awarding a compensatory mark would only rectify the prejudice caused by the repeated question and would not impact the position of other candidates. It noted that the University's mistake had resulted in unequal treatment among candidates.

Accordingly, the Court directed the University to award one additional mark to the petitioner, declare her as "passed" in the Ophthalmology subject and consider her case for commencement of the Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship (CRRI). The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. 

Case Title: Duvvuru Nithya Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 15135 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ayesha Azma S

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare and Tata Venkata Sridevi.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 123