HYDERABAD: Concerns over discrepancies in the evaluation of answer sheets for the postgraduate medical examination have intensified, with several final year MD and MS students from government and private colleges questioning the evaluation process after many reportedly failed by a narrow margin.

The resignation of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences vice chancellor Dr PV Nanda Kumar Reddy on Friday has further fuelled the agitation.

PG students, who had earlier approached the university and health department officials seeking revaluation of exam papers, are now pressing harder for their demand. They cited a recent instance where the university allowed revaluation of a female student’s paper, after which she was declared passed.

Students claimed there were gross discrepancies and irregularities in the evaluation of the postgraduate (MD/MS) theory exams held between October 7 and October 15, and the practical exams held between October 25 and October 30. The results were declared on November 4.

Out of 1,900 candidates, around 200 reportedly failed across government and private colleges.

Students said the results were released unusually quickly compared to previous examinations, while the failure rate stood at 11% compared to the earlier batches’ 1–2%, raising concerns over the accuracy of the process.

Following the announcement of results, students approached the V-C and submitted a representation to the health minister on November 8, who directed them to the health secretary.

Speaking to TNIE, Dr Venkatesh Kumar, a third-year PG student at Gandhi Medical College, said, “We approached the V-C and the health minister after the results were declared for revaluation and recounting, who asked us to meet the health secretary, but there was no response from any of the authorities.

The issue is very serious as the difference between the expected score and the actual score is approximately 60–80 marks cumulatively. With no concrete way forward, we are exploring further course of action and may also consider legal recourse.”

Students also questioned whether the evaluators met the NMC requirement of at least eight years of teaching experience.

They alleged that less experienced faculty members were appointed for evaluation and expressed concern that the papers might have been assessed by a single evaluator instead of a two-level evaluation system.

They demanded the constitution of a separate three-member committee to scrutinise the reevaluation process.