Gajji Navya, a student from Jannaram mandal in Mancherial district, secured 98 marks in first year Intermediate Telugu paper but the second year results were a shocker to her when zero marks were awarded. She was declared failed.
A worried Navya, who is said to be the district topper, approached the Board of Intermediate Education (BIE) and, after a thorough check, her original marks were declared to be 99 out of 100.
This is one of the cases that reflect the way Intermediate examination results were handled by the BIE. Added to it, a dozen students across Telangana committed suicide as they failed in the examination. The results showed that about 2006 students ended up in the failed category despite their marks being between 750 and 800. Among these, 11 students were found to have failed although their total marks were more than 900 while 125 more were in the 850-900 marks category.
No wonder, hundreds of affected students were forced to protest at the BIE office on Saturday, demanding a thorough verification of the results. Some of them were failed and some were declared failed despite their good previous academic record while some were declared absent from the examination.
The ‘goof-ups’ received wide media attention forcing Chief Secretary S. K. Joshi to call for a review meeting late in the night on Saturday. The BIE explained that the results of 146 students who sought review of marks were analysed and they were found to have failed. There were no large-scale discrepancies as alleged, said a BIE statement.
From the word go
However, some officials said controversy began right from the day of using the services of a private software firm, Globarena, which they say didn’t have the qualification to handle BIE affairs.
It is alleged that discrepancies were noticed in the payment of examination fee itself as the payment was not reflected in the system, forcing some colleges to pay the fee twice. “Nearly, ₹16 lakh had been paid additionally by the end of October due to the faulty software and the BIE is yet to pay back the money to the principals of junior colleges, most of them run by Government,” a lecturer involved in the process said.
The exam fee date was extended several times because the website where they had to pay the fee did not open. “Why was the software firm favoured although it did not have the requisite qualification,” asked Madhusudhan Reddy, president of the Government Junior Lecturers Association (GJLA).