ORDER : The petitioners who are the final year MBBS students in G.S.L. Medical College, Lakshmipuram, Rajahmundry and failed in the practical examinations pray for writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the representation dated 13.09.2021 of the petitioners and not conducting re-examination of the practicals for final MBBS part-II examinations in obstetrics and gynecology as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondents to conduct the re-examination of practicals. 2. Petitioners’ case succinctly is thus: The petitioners’ college is affiliated to 2nd respondent University which has issued notification for conducting MBBS Part-II Final Examination in August, 2021. As per the practice, the 2nd respondent will first conduct the prtactical examination and then theory examination. The University issued the schedule for the practical and theory examinations and allotted Rangaraya Medical College (for short ‘RMC’), Kakinada as examination center for the students of G.S.L. Medical College, Rajahmundry, Konaseema Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ‘KIMS’), Amalapuram and RMC, Kakinada. As per MCI/NMC regulations, the practical examinations shall be conducted by four examiners – two external examiners and two internal examiners and examination shall be conducted for a batch consisting of twenty students per day. The 2nd respondent appointed one internal examiner each from RMC and G.S.L. Medical College depriving the students of Rajahmundry of having two internal examiners. Similar pattern was followed for the students of KIMS, Amalapuram. However, RMC, Kakinada is concerned, two internal examiners were appointed from the said college. (a) The practical examinations shall be conducted by the aforesaid four examiners physically in the examination hall by observing the performance of the students. Holding of practical examinations through online is not prescribed by MCI/NMC/University. However, only three examiners were physically present and the fourth examiner decided to conduct practical examination online through whats app which is contrary to the rules and regulations. Added to it on the date of examination the RMC, Kakinada could not provide proper networking facility for holding the examination and thereby there was lot of disturbance and breakdown in the communication through whats app. The internal examiners tried to inform the same to the fourth/external examiner. However, he has not listened to the remarks or observations of the internal examiners and he unilaterally awarded marks to the students without conducting the examination properly and without consulting them. The internal examiners tried to inform the same to the fourth/external examiner. However, he has not listened to the remarks or observations of the internal examiners and he unilaterally awarded marks to the students without conducting the examination properly and without consulting them. Immediately the students reported about the irregularity in holding the practical examination to the 2nd respondent. The internal examiners also informed about the improper conduct of examination by the fourth examiner to the 2nd respondent. It came to petitioners’ knowledge that the students of KIMS, Amalapuram also faced similar problem during practical examination. They also came to know that as against the norm of conducting examination for 20 students per day, examination was conducted for more than 20 students. The petitioners thus requested the 2nd respondent to conduct re-examination. However, there was no response. The petitioners secured good marks in the theory examination but surprisingly they failed in the practical examinations. In similar circumstances re-examination of the practicals were earlier conducted by the 2nd respondent University. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter contending thus: (a) The MBBS course is governed by the regulations prescribed by the Apex body i.e., the 4th respondent/National Medical Commission (NMC). Being a professional course each student shall acquire sufficient skills in both theory and practical examinations towards training of students and to undertake responsibilities of physician of first contact. Accordingly, the University conducted practical examinations by following norms and advisories issued in the light of Covid-19 pandemic by the 4th respondent. (b) The University issued notification for conducting of MBBS Final year Part-II theory examinations from 03.08.2021 followed by practical examinations from 24.08.2021. For supplementary examinations less number of students will take the exam and therefore as per regular practice, nearest colleges were clubbed for examination centre. As such RMC, Kakinada was fixed as clubbed-examination center for students of RMC, Kakinada, GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry and KIMS, Amalapuram. (c) The final MBBS Part-II theory and practical examinations were conducted as per guidelines dated 25.11.2020, 09.04.2021 and 19.04.2021 of the 4th respondent. All the principals were advised that they shall ensure strict compliance of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and respective State/UT Government regarding Covid-19 preventive measures including social distance etc. (c) The final MBBS Part-II theory and practical examinations were conducted as per guidelines dated 25.11.2020, 09.04.2021 and 19.04.2021 of the 4th respondent. All the principals were advised that they shall ensure strict compliance of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and respective State/UT Government regarding Covid-19 preventive measures including social distance etc. (d) The following guidelines were issued by the 4th respondent: (1) No person shall be appointed as an examiner in any of the subjects of the professional examination leading to and including the final professional examination for the award of the MBBS degree unless he/she has taken at least five years previously, a doctorate degree from a recognized University or an equivalent qualification in the particular subject as per recommendation of the council on teachers’ eligibility qualifications and has had at least five years of total teaching experience in the subject concerned in a college affiliated to a recognized University at a faculty position. (2) There shall be at least four examiners for 100 students, out of whom not less than 50% must be external examiners. Of the four examiners, the senior most internal examiner will act as the Chairman and coordinator of the whole examination programme so that uniformity in the matter of assessment of candidates is maintained. Where candidates exceed 100, one additional examiner, for every additional 50 candidates shall be appointed. (3) Non medical scientists engaged in the teaching of medical students as whole time teachers, may be appointed examiners in their concerned subjects provided they possess requisite doctorate qualifications and five year teaching experience of medical students after obtaining their postgraduate qualifications. Provided further that the 50% of the examiners (Internal & External) are from the medical qualification stream. (4) External examiners shall not be from the same university and preferably be from outside the State. (5) The internal examiner in a subject shall not accept external examinership for a college from which external examiner is appointed in his subject. (5) A university having more than one college shall have separate sets of examiners for each college, with internal examiners from the concerned college. (6) External examiners shall rotate at an interval of 2 years. (7) There shall be a Chairman of the Board of paper-setters who shall be an internal examiner and shall moderate the questions. (5) A university having more than one college shall have separate sets of examiners for each college, with internal examiners from the concerned college. (6) External examiners shall rotate at an interval of 2 years. (7) There shall be a Chairman of the Board of paper-setters who shall be an internal examiner and shall moderate the questions. (8) Except Head of the department of subject concerned in a college/institution, all other with the rank of reader or equivalent and above with requisite qualifications and experience shall be appointed internal examiners by rotation in their subjects; provided that where there are no posts of readers, then an Assistant Professor of 5 years standing as Assistant Professor may be considered for appointment as examiner. (e) Apart from the above regulations, the 4th respondent issued revised advisory vide letter dated 19.04.2021 for conducting Final MBBS Part-II Theory and Practical examinations in view of ongoing Covid-19 pandemic in the Country. As per said advisory, the NMC, New Delhi has given a provision that if the external examiners are not able to travel, they may conduct the exams online and the internal examiners should be available physically for the conduct of examinations. Accordingly, University appointed four examiners i.e., 02 internal examiners and 02 external examiners duly allowing the externals for conducting examinations online as per NMC advisory. When the practicals are conducting in a clubbed examination center, the first internal shall be from the college wherein the examination center is fixed for all the students and the second internal shall be from the respective college. Accordingly, the faculty of RMC, Kakinada acted as first internal examiner and the faculty from G.S.L.Medical College, Rajahmundry acted as second internal examiner. The practical examination for the students of GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry in the subject of OBG was conducted on 24.08.2021. Four examiners i.e., two internals and two externals have conducted the examination. No technical problem or other problem was reported by the examiners or students to the University during the practical examination. The four examiners have assessed the performance of the students and gave the statement of marks of all the students. Basing on those marks results were generated. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that one external who conducted examination online has not properly assessed their performance is not correct. The marks awarded to each candidate were the total marks given by all the four examiners. Basing on those marks results were generated. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that one external who conducted examination online has not properly assessed their performance is not correct. The marks awarded to each candidate were the total marks given by all the four examiners. A similar W.P.No.10878 of 2021 filed by some petitioners, was dismissed by this Court. (f) It is further contended that the University has already issued notification for conducting the next theory examinations for the regular and supplementary batches from 18.01.2022 followed by practical examinations. The failed candidates can apply for the said examinations as supplementary candidates as per the norms of the 4th respondent. Hence the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G.V.S Mehar Kumar and Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsels have reiterated the pleadings in their respective arguments. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow ? 7. Point: The main grounds on which the petitioners challenged the results of the practicals of the final MBBS Part-II examination in the subject of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OBG) are: 1. As per MCA/NMC regulations the practical examination shall be conducted by four examiners i.e., two external examiners and two internal examiners and they shall conduct the practical exam physically in the examination hall by observing performance of the students. However, the practical examination was conducted online. Only three examiners, i.e., two internals and one external were physically present and the 4th examiner decided to conduct practical examination online through whats app application contrary to the rules and regulations. 2. On the date of examination there was a lot of network problem as the RMC, Kakinada could not provide proper networking facility for holding examination which resulted in lot of disturbance and breakdown in the communication between the students and the examiners. In spite of appraisal of the internal examiners about the disturbance caused to the students, the external examiner who conducted the practicals through online did not listen and he unilaterally awarded the marks to the students without conducting practicals properly and without consulting the other examiners. As a result, the petitioners who are inherently intelligent and hard working students failed in the practicals. It has now to be seen whether the above grounds are formidable to allow the writ petition. 8. As a result, the petitioners who are inherently intelligent and hard working students failed in the practicals. It has now to be seen whether the above grounds are formidable to allow the writ petition. 8. As against the first ground raised by the petitioners, the contention of the respondents is that the MBBS course is governed by the regulations prescribed by the apex body i.e., the 4th respondent/NMC. It issued guidelines stating that for every 100 students, 4 examiners shall be engaged out of whom not less than 50% must be external examiners, meaning thereby for every practical examination there shall be two internals and two externals. External examiners shall not be from the same University and they shall be preferably from outside the State. A University having more than one college shall have separate sets of examiners for each college, with internal examiners from the concerned college. It is the further contention of the respondents that apart from the above regulations, the 4th respondent issued a revised advisory vide letter dated 09.04.2021 stating that in view of ongoing Covid-19 pandemic in the Country, if the external examiners are not able to travel, they may conduct the exams online and internal examiners should be available physically for the conduct of examinations. It is vehemently contended by the respondents that 2nd respondent University has scrupulously followed all the above guidelines and appointed 4 examiners i.e., two internal examiners and two external examiners duly allowing the examiners to conduct practical examinations online as per NMC advisory and therefore there is no violation of the NMC rules or guidelines or University norms. 9. I perused the booklet styled as “Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (Amended upto May, 2018)” published by the MCI, a copy of which is filed by the respondents along with material papers enclosed to the counter. Guideline No.13 relates to appointment of examiners. It reads thus: “13. APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINERS: 1. xxx 2. There shall be at least four examiners for 100 students, out of whom not less than 50% must be external examiners. Of the four examiners, the senior most internal examiner will act as the Chairman and Coordinator of the whole examination programme so that uniformity in the matter of assessment of candidates is maintained. APPOINTMENT OF EXAMINERS: 1. xxx 2. There shall be at least four examiners for 100 students, out of whom not less than 50% must be external examiners. Of the four examiners, the senior most internal examiner will act as the Chairman and Coordinator of the whole examination programme so that uniformity in the matter of assessment of candidates is maintained. Where candidates appearing are more than 100, one additional examiner, for every additional 50 or part thereof candidates appearing, be appointed. 3. xxx 4. External examiners shall not be from the same university and preferably be from outside the state. 5. xxx 6. A university having more than one college shall have separate sets of examiners for each college, with internal examiners from the concerned college. 7. xx 8. xx 9. xx 10. xx” l 10. Thus the guideline No.13 would show that for every 100 students, 4 examiners must be appointed out of whom 50% i.e., two examiners must be external examiners and remaining two shall be the internal examiners. 11. Then I perused the advisory letter No.UGMEB/NMC/Annual Examinations/Advisory/02/2021, dated 19.04.2021 sent by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board, National Medical Commission giving instructions to conduct final MBBS (Part-1 and Part-2) Theory and Practical examinations during Covid-19 pandemic. The important guidelines are: i. If the external examiners are not able to travel, they may conduct the exams online. ii. The internal examiners should be available physically for the conduct of examinations. 12. Thus the collation of above guidelines would show that there shall be four examiners out of whom two shall be externals and two shall be internals. Further, if the external examiners are not able to travel due to prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic in the Country, they may conduct exams online. Keeping the above guidelines in view, the 2nd respondent University in its letter No.2001/E1(b)/UG/Feb,2021, dated 10.08.2021 issued schedule of practical examinations for Final MBBS Part-II course (Supplementary exams) to all the medical colleges under its control (A copy of the said letter is filed by the respondents along with material papers). In the said letter it is stated that clubbing of examination centers was implemented as the number of candidates are less. The schedule would show that the RMC, Kakinada, GSL, Rajahmundry and KIMS, Amalapuram were clubbed together and RMC, Kakinada was fixed as examination center. In the said letter it is stated that clubbing of examination centers was implemented as the number of candidates are less. The schedule would show that the RMC, Kakinada, GSL, Rajahmundry and KIMS, Amalapuram were clubbed together and RMC, Kakinada was fixed as examination center. We are concerned with the practicals of obstetrics and gynecology and as per schedule, the practical exam for obstetrics and gynecology was fixed on 24.08.2021. 5 students from RMC, Kakinada, 13 students from GSL, Rajahmundry and 8 students from KIMS, Amalapuram appeared for obstetrics and gynecology practicals. As per the letter No.2001/E1(b)/UG/Feb,2021, dated 19.08.2021 sent by the 2nd respondent to its medical colleges, for conducting practicals on 24.08.2021, in OBG (1) Dr.S. Lavanya Kumari, Prof. & HOD of OBG, RMC, Kakinada (2) Dr. B. Akkamamba, Associate Prof. of OBG, RMC Kakinada (3) Dr. G.A.L Satyavathi, Prof. of OBG, GSL, Rajahmundry and (4) Dr. K. Subba Rao, Prof. of OBG, KIMS, Amalapuram were appointed as internal examiners, whereas (1) Dr.V. Janaki, MDDGO, Associate Prof. of OBG, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad (2) Dr. Suguna, Prof. of OBG, Mamatha Academy of Medical Sciences, Bachupally were appointed as external examiners. However, due to some changes Dr. Y. Anuragamayi, Associate Prof. of OBGY, RMC, Kakinada and Dr. A. Chitti Sudha, Prof. of OBG, GSL, Rajahmundry acted as internal examiners along with external examiners Dr. V. Janaki and Dr. Suguna on 24.08.2021. 13. Thus on a conspectus of the above guidelines of MCI and examination schedule issued by the 2nd respondent University, I am of the considered view that the 2nd respondent University has scrupulously followed the guidelines of MCI for conducting practical examinations. Four examiners were engaged out of whom two are internal examiners and two are external examiners. In view of relaxations given by the MCI due to Covid-19 pandemic, the two external examiners who belong to other State were permitted to conduct practical examination by online. In that view of the matter I find no force in the first contention of the petitioners that holding of practical examinations by online is contrary to the rules. 14. In view of relaxations given by the MCI due to Covid-19 pandemic, the two external examiners who belong to other State were permitted to conduct practical examination by online. In that view of the matter I find no force in the first contention of the petitioners that holding of practical examinations by online is contrary to the rules. 14. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is the vehement contention of the petitioners that there was a lot of network problem in RMC, Kakinada during the practical examination and the authorities could not provide proper networking facility which resulted in a lot of disturbance and breakdown in the communication between the students and examiners. It is also their contention that though the internal examiners apprised the external examiners about the technical problems, the external examiner who conducted the practical examination through online, did not listen and unilaterally awarded the marks to the students without consulting other examiners. Thereby, the petitioners could not fare well in the practicals. (a) In the above context, a perusal of the copy of the letter dated 31.08.2021 submitted by the Final MBBS Part-II students to the Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University depict their travails (a copy of which is filed by the respondents along with the material papers). Their main grievance is that whole Viva was conducted by only one external examiner and she did not permit other external examiner to conduct practical and Viva examination. (b) In similar lines, Dr. A. Chitti Sudha, Associate Prof. GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry addressed a letter dated 02.09.2021 to Vice Chancellor of 2nd respondent University (a copy of the said letter is filed by the respondents). It was mentioned that the network available was not user-friendly and there was a lot of difficulty in communication between the internal and external examiners and with the students because of poor network. She also wrote another letter dated 14.09.2021 to the 3rd respondent wherein she stated that the online clinical examination was first of its kind for all of them and the preparation for examination was poor. There were technical problems most of the time and transmission of signals was not good and there was noise and disturbance and intelligent interpretation of what was communicated could not be made. (c) The other internal examiner Dr. There were technical problems most of the time and transmission of signals was not good and there was noise and disturbance and intelligent interpretation of what was communicated could not be made. (c) The other internal examiner Dr. Y. Anuragamayi also addressed a letter dated 13.09.2021 (a copy of the said letter is filed by the respondents) to the 3rd respondent wherein she stated that the online examination was first of its kind for the students and the Wi-Fi connection was poor and so they faced lot of technical problems. They conducted the examination in Goto Meeting App. After some time, the connection was lost and so they conducted examination through whats app video call. She further stated that one external examiner could not attend for some time because of problem in internet connection and therefore the other external examiner had to conduct exam and after sometime the remaining external examiner joined. She stressed that there were lot of technical disturbances and communication gaps between the examiners and students and the performance of students was below average may be because of inadequate practical knowledge and also may be due to Covid-19 and due to new examination centers. Hence, they requested both the external examiners to consider, but unfortunately they did not accept their request. The students performed under lot of duress. (d) Similarly, Dr. K. Subba Rao, Prof. of OBG, KIMS, Amalapuram addressed a letter dated 13.09.2021 (a copy of the letter is filed by the respondents) wherein he stated that practical/viva examinations could not be conducted as per rules and regulation of the University. He further stated that the whole practical and Viva were conducted by external examiners only disregarding the internal examiners and there was no proper communication between the students and external examiners due to some technical issues that happened during the examination. Both the internal examiners discussed the problem with the external examiners but they did not give any chance. They were adamant and failed all the candidates. They did not bother to hear even the technical issues that were faced during the examination. He went ahead and stated that as the external examiners only decided the final result and asked the internal examiners to sign the sheet for uploading, they had no chance to intimate to the University. 15. They were adamant and failed all the candidates. They did not bother to hear even the technical issues that were faced during the examination. He went ahead and stated that as the external examiners only decided the final result and asked the internal examiners to sign the sheet for uploading, they had no chance to intimate to the University. 15. The above are the candid views expressed by the internal examiners who were physically present when the practicals went on 24.08.2021 in RMC, Kakinada. 16. It appears the 2nd respondent did not give much weight to the views of the internal examiners because of the fact that four examiners signed on the sheet and uploaded the marks and one coordinator/chief internal examiner stated in her letter that the performance of the students was average. Thus the 2nd respondent in his endorsement dated 18.09.2021, observed that the question of injustice to the students and conduction of re-examination does not arise (a copy of the endorsement is filed by the respondents along with the material papers). 17. This Court is unable to agree with the observation of the 2nd respondent. The whole gamut of facts as projected by the students and internal examiners would clearly show that the poor internet facility provided in RMC, Kakinada played havoc in the practical examinations. There was no proper communication between the students and external examiner who conducted practicals online. Similarly, there was no proper communication between internal examiners and external examiners because of the technical disturbance. Further, it appears there were differences of opinion between the internal examiners and external examiners. So at the outset it can be said that the practical examination did not go on in smooth lines and thereby the students faced lot of inconvenience. Whether the students are intelligents or mediocres is a different aspect. The point is whether the authorities have provided a congenial atmosphere to the students to exhibit their skills to full extent in the practicals. I am constrained to note that the same is sourly missing in the instant case. There is no gainsaying that poor infrastructural facility had had adverse impact on the performance of the students who were already under the examination-tension. Therefore, it is not apt to attribute the failure of the students to their average intelligence alone as observed by the 2nd respondent. There is no gainsaying that poor infrastructural facility had had adverse impact on the performance of the students who were already under the examination-tension. Therefore, it is not apt to attribute the failure of the students to their average intelligence alone as observed by the 2nd respondent. The respondent authorities must take the responsibility for the failure of the students and re-conduct the practical examination to all those students who failed in the Obstetrics and Gynecology practical examination held on 24.08.2021. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and respondent authorities are directed to re-conduct the practical examination in the subject Obstetrics and Gynecology to all those students who attended the practical examinations on 24.08.2021 in RMC, Kakinada and failed and announce the results within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.