Karnataka High Court
Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health … vs Sri Vallabha Uday Patel on 5 March, 2026
-1-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2050 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2049 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2073 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 701 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 706 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 720 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
IN W.A. No. 2050/2025
Digitally BETWEEN:
signed by
VEERENDRA 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
KUMAR K M
HEALTH SCIENCE
Location: High
Court of 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. SAHANA G SHATAGAR
D/O MR. GULAPPA SHATAGAR
-2-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
PG STUDENT
M.D. (GENERAL MEDICINE)
J.J.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE
MCC 'B' BLOCK, NIJALINGAPPA LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 002
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8
DWARAKAR PHASE-1
NEW DELHI - 111 0077
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SRI H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN W.P.No.34041/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01.12.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO. 2049/2025
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
…APPELLANT
-3-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSAND:
1. DR. LIKITHA V
D/O DR. V VENUGOPAL
AGED 28 YEARS
P.G. STUDENT (M.S. ENT)
R/O. No.64/2, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD
J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BANGALORE – 560 078
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8
DWARAKAR PHASE-1
NEW DELHI – 111 0077
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SRI H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.34928/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01/12/2025, PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO. 2073/2025
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
…APPELLANT(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE)
-4-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSAND:
1. DR. POOJITHA REDDY
D/O MR. GANAPAN PEDDI REDDY
AGED 26 YEARS
PG STUDENT (M.D. PAEDIATRICS)
R/O PUJITHA HOES No.2734
1ST FLOOR, E BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 092
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI – 111 0077
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SRI H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P.NO.34487/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01/12/2025, PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO.4/2026
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
-5-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSOF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE – 41
…APPELLANTS(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE)AND:
1. SRI VALLABHA UDAY PATEL
S/O UDAY MOHANABHAI PATEL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.220 KIMS RESIDENCY QUARTERS
KIMS HOSPITAL, V.V. PURAM
BANGALORE – 560 004
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET – 14, SECTOR – 8, DWARAKA PHASE 1,
NEW DELHI – 110 077
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI MANJUNATH K.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SRI H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P. No. 34621/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01.12.2025, PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO. 701/2026
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET 14, SECTOR – 8
-6-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSDWARAKA PHASE 1
NEW DELHI – 1110077
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
…APPELLANT(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. POOJITHA REDDY
D/O MR. GANAPAN PEDDI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
PG STUDENT (M.D. PAEDIATRICS)
R/O PUJITHA HOES No.2734
1ST FLOOR, E BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 092
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.34487/2025 DATED 01.12.2025 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO. 706/2026
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE 1
-7-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSNEW DELHI – 111 0077
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI C.K. RAMASWAMY
…APPELLANT(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAHANA G. SHATGAR
D/O MR.GULAPPA SHATAGAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
PG STUDENT (M.D. GENERAL MEDICINE)
J.J.M MEDICAL COLLEGE
MCC B BLOCK, NIJALIGAPPA LAYOUT
BANGALORE – 577 002
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)THIS WRIT APPEAL ISFILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.34041/2025 DATED 01/12/2025 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO. 709/2026
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET – 14, SECTOR – 8, DWARAKA PHASE 1
-8-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSNEW DELHI – 111 0077
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI C.K. RAMASWAMY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VALLABH UDAY PATEL
S/O UDAY MOHANABHAI PATEL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.220, KIMS RESIDENCY QUARTERS
KIMS HOSPITAL, V.V. PURAM
BANGALORE – 560 004
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
3. THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 041
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3)THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.34621/2025 DATED 01.12.2025 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
IN W.A. NO. 720/2026
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
-9-
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERSPOCKET – 14, SECTOR – 8, DWARAKA PHASE-1
NEW DELHI – 1110077
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI C.K. RAMASWAMY
…APPELLANT(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. LIKITHA V
D/O DR.V. VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
PG STUDENT (M.S. ENT)
R/O NO.64/2, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE
BANGALORE – 560 078
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION
…RESPONDENTS(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 &
SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.34928/2025 DATED 01/12/2025 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
– 10 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHAC.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences
[University] and National Medical Commission [NMC], have
preferred these appeals impugning the separate orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in writ petitions1 which were preferred by
the students of the University seeking re-evaluation of their answer
scripts of the examination undertaken by them in subjects where
they had failed to get the minimum marks for passing the said
examination.
2. The criteria for passing the examination are to secure more
than 200 marks out of 400 in the theory examination, which
comprises four papers of 100 marks each, and a minimum of 40
marks in each of the four papers. The writ petitioners secured an
1
W.P.Nos.34041/2025, 34928/2025, 34487/2025 and 34621/2025 decided on
01.12.2025
– 11 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
aggregate of 200 or more marks, but failed to secure the minimum
40 marks in all papers. Thus, they were declared to have failed the
examinations. In the aforesaid circumstances, they filed the said writ
petitions, essentially, seeking re-evaluation of their answer scripts.
3. Under Regulation 8.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2023 [The Regulations], each answer script was
evaluated by two evaluators, and the average of the marks awarded
by the two evaluators was accepted as the final result.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and
directed the University to refer the answer scripts of the subjects in
question to a third evaluator with a further direction to take the
average of the best of the two total marks awarded by the three
evaluators, rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number) for
the purpose of final computation of the results.
5. At the outset, it is material to note that there was no
demonstrable error in the evaluation of the answer scripts. The only
ground on which the writ petitions were allowed was that the
aggregate marks secured by the writ petitioners were 200 or more,
which was sufficient for them to pass the examination. However,
– 12 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
they had been declared failed for failing to obtain the minimum
threshold of 40 marks in one of the papers. The Court reasoned
that the said fact warranted reference of the answer scripts to a third
evaluator to “do substantial justice and on the grounds of equity”.
6. The material facts regarding the marks secured by students in
each of the writ petitions differ, and so do the results. The
examinations and the course being undertaken by them vary;
however, the question involved in the writ petition is common. The
operative part of the impugned orders and reasoning of the learned
Single Judge in allowing the respective writ petitions are similar. In
this view, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present appeals
by a common judgment.
7. A tabular statement setting out the writ petition number, name
of the writ petitioner, the course, the aggregate marks as obtained
and the examination paper wherein the marks awarded are less
than 40, the marks awarded by the two evaluators and the average
marks in the said paper are set out in the table below.
– 13 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025 C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025 WA No. 2073 of 2025 AND 5 OTHERS Marks awarded by Paper in the 1st Aggregat which W.P.No./ Name of the writ Course undertaken evaluator/ 2nd e marks marks W.A.Nos. petitioner/S by the petitioner/s evaluator/ secured awarded is average of less than the two 40 evaluators WP No.34041/2025 DR. SAHANA M.D.(General 201 Theory (WA No.2050/2025 G SHATAGAR Medicine) Paper 40 38 39 & WA No.706/2026) No.3 WP No.34928/2025 DR. LIKHITHA M.S.(ENT) 207 Theory (WA No.2049/2025 V Paper 41 31 36 & WA No.720/2026) No.1 WP No.34487/2025 DR. M.D.(Paediatrics) 200 Theory (WA No.2073/2025 G.POOJITHA Paper 43 35 39 & WA No.701/2026) REDDY No.1 WP No.34621/2025 SRI VALLABH M.S.(Obstetrics 202 Theory (WA No.4/2026 & UDAY PATEL and Paper 35 42 39 WA No.709/2026) Gynaecology) No.3
8. For the purposes of anchoring the present decision on a
factual matrix, we consider it apposite to treat W.A.No.2050/2025
(EDN-RES) as the lead matter.
9. The writ petitioner (respondent No.1) is a student undergoing
the course of M.D. (General Medicine) in the University. She
appeared in an examination conducted in September 2025, and
secured an aggregate of 201 marks out of a maximum of 400 marks
in the four theory papers. Whereas the marks obtained by her in
theory papers I, II, and IV were above 40 out of 100, the marks
obtained by her in paper III were 39. This was because one of the
evaluators awarded 38 marks, while the other evaluator awarded 40
– 14 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
marks for the answer script. The average of the marks awarded by
the two evaluators is taken for the final result. Thus, the writ
petitioner’s marks in paper III were determined as 39 marks for the
purposes of determining her final result. Since the said marks were
below the minimum required to clear the examination, the writ
petitioner was declared as failed. In the aforesaid circumstances,
she filed the writ petition being W.P.No.34041/2025 (EDN-RES),
inter alia, praying as under:
“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the
Respondent-University to conduct an additional
evaluation of the Petitioner’s Answer Paper III of the
subject M.D. General Medicine of the P.G Medical
Examination of September 2025, by appointing two
new examiners other than those who evaluated earlier,
in accordance with its regulations and to declare the
result based on the additional evaluation; andii. Direct the Respondent-University to publish
the revised result of the Petitioner expeditiously, within
a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interests
of justice and equity; andiii. Declare that the Registrar (Evaluation), being
a statutory authority under the RGUHS Act, possesses
the power and is under a duty to exercise such
discretion in cases involving apparent evaluation errors
or exceptional hardship, and that his refusal to do so in
the present case amounts to non-exercise of
jurisdiction and arbitrary inaction; andiv. To direct the Registrar (Evaluation), RGUHS,
to exercise the discretion vested in him to order re-
– 15 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
evaluation or additional evaluation in exceptional cases
of manifest error, including that of the Petitioner herein,
in accordance with the principles of fairness, equity,
and uniformity; andv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”
10. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 01.12.2025.
The operative part of the order reads as under:
“ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Respondent No.1-Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences, Jayanagar, Bengaluru is
directed to refer Theory Paper No.3 written by
the petitioner to a third Evaluator and announce
the result, in terms of Regulation 8.4(b) of
the Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2023 within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
11. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to the
Regulations that govern the evaluation of the answer scripts.
Regulation 8.4 of the Regulations is relevant, and the relevant
extract is set out below.
“8.4 Valuation:
a. All the teachers of the other colleges of the concerned University
or other Universities, who are eligible to be post-graduate
examiners, can perform the valuation of the answer scripts.
b. All the answer scripts shall be subjected for two valuations by the
concerned University. The average of the total marks awarded by
– 16 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
the two valuators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest
integer (whole number), shall be considered for computation of the
results. All the answer scripts, where the difference between two
valuations is 15% and more of the total marks prescribed for the
paper shall be subjected to third valuation. The average of the best
two total marks, awarded by the three evaluators for the paper,
rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number), shall be
considered for final computation of the results.
c. After the computation and declaration of the results, under no
circumstances, revaluation is permitted.
d. All the Health Universities/Institutions imparting post-graduate
courses shall implement digital valuation.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF M.S/M.D./M.Ch./DM COURSES
S.No. Description M.S/M.D./M.Ch./DM Courses
1 THEORY
No. of Theory Papers 4
Marks for each Theory 100
Paper
Total marks for Theory 400
Paper
Passing Minimum for 200/400 (40% minimum in
Theory each paper)
2 PRACTICAL/CLINICAL 300
3 VIVA VOCE 100
Passing minimum for 200/400
Practical/Clinical
including Viva voce
The candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in
each head of passing which shall include
(1) Theory-aggregate 50% (In addition, in each Theory
paper a candidate has to secure minimum of 40%)
(2) Practical/Clinical and Viva voce aggregate 50%
(3) If any candidate fails even under one head, he/she
has to re-appear for both Theory and Practical/Clinical
and Viva voce examination.
(4) Five per cent of mark of total marks of
Clinical/Practical and Viva Voce marks (20 marks) will be
of dissertation/thesis and it will be part of clinical/practical
examination marks. External examiner outside the state
will evaluate dissertation/ thesis and take viva voce on it
and marks will be giver on quality of dissertation/thesis
and performance on its viva voce.
(5) No grace mark is permitted in post-graduate
examination either for theory or for practical. ″
– 17 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
12. Regulation 8.4(c) of the Regulations expressly prohibits re-
evaluation of the answer scripts. Regulation 8.4(b) provides that the
answer scripts shall be subjected to two evaluations, and the
average of the total marks awarded by the two evaluators for the
paper, rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number), would be
considered for the computation of the results. There is no ambiguity
in the method used to calculate the results.
13. The question of whether students/candidates are entitled to
re-evaluation of answer scripts where the applicable rules and
regulations prohibit the same is no longer res integra. In
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education and Another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and
Others2, the Supreme Court considered an appeal from a High
Court decision striking down a rule prohibiting the re-evaluation of
answer books. The said rule had been challenged by certain
students, inter alia, praying that they be allowed to inspect the
answer sheets and the Board (Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education) be directed to re-
evaluate the answer scripts. The Bombay High Court had partly
2
(1984) 4 SCC 27
– 18 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
allowed the writ petition. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme
Court held as under:
“20. We consider that the above approach made by the
High Court is totally fallacious and is vitiated by its failure to
follow the well-established doctrine of interpretation that
the provisions contained in a statutory enactment or in
rules/regulations framed thereunder have to be so
construed as to be in harmony with each other and that
where under a specific section or rule a particular subject
has received special treatment, such special provision will
exclude the applicability of any general provision which
might otherwise cover the said topic. Regulation 102(2), if
properly construed in the setting in which it occurs, only
confers a suo motu power on the Divisional Board to
amend the result of the examination in respect of any
candidate or candidates on its being found that such result
has been affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper
conduct, etc. The “error” referred to in the said provision
has, in the context, to be understood as being limited to an
error arising in consequence of malpractice, fraud,
improper conduct or other similar matter of whatsoever
nature. We are unable to understand this provision as
conferring any right on an examinee to demand a
disclosure, inspection or verification of his answer books or
other related documents. All scope for doubt or speculation
in relation to this matter has, however, been eliminated by
the provision contained in Regulation 104 which
specifically deals with the subject of verification of marks
obtained by a candidate. Clause (1) of the said regulation
states that any candidate who has appeared at the HSC
examination may apply to Divisional Secretary for
verification of marks, particularly in any subject, but such
verification will be restricted to check whether all the
answers have been examined and whether any mistake
has been committed in totalling of marks in that subject or
in transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the
answer book as well as whether the supplements attached
to the answer books as mentioned by the candidates are
intact. Clause (3) of the said regulation imposes the further
limitation that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to
– 19 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
revaluation of his answer book or disclosure or inspection
of the answer book or further documents as these are to be
treated by the Divisional Boards as most confidential. It is
obvious that clauses (1) and (3) have to be read together
and not in isolation from each other as has apparently
been done by the High Court. The right of verification
conferred by clause (1) is subject to the limitation
contained in the same clause that no revaluation of the
answer books or supplements shall be done and the
further restriction imposed by clause (3), prohibiting
disclosure or inspection of the answer books. The High
Court seems to have construed the last portion of clause
(3) as implying that the confidentiality of the answer books
is to be declared by some order of the Divisional Board and
it has proceeded to hold that since no such order was
brought to the notice of the Court there was no basis for
treating the answer books as confidential. In our opinion,
this interpretation of the concluding words of clause (3) is
incorrect. What is laid down therein is that the answer
books and other documents are to be treated by the
Divisional Boards as most confidential. In other words, this
clause of the regulation contains a mandate to the
Divisional Boards to treat the answer books and
documents as confidential and lays down that no candidate
shall be entitled to claim disclosure or inspection of the
said confidential books and documents. We are also of the
opinion that the High Court was in error in invoking the
“doctrine of implied power and obligation” for the purpose
of holding that because the right of verification has been
conferred by clause (1) of Regulation 104, there is an
implied power in the examinees to demand disclosure and
inspection and a corresponding implied obligation on the
part of the Board to accede to such a demand. There is no
scope at all for invoking any such implied power or
imputing to the regulation-making authority an intention to
confer such power by implication when there is an express
provision contained in the very same regulation [clause (3)]
which clearly manifests the contrary intention and states in
categorical terms that there shall be no claim or entitlement
for disclosure or inspection of the answer books.”
– 20 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
14. In a later decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava
v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and
others3, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (supra) and held as
under:
“..in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of
answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask
for re-evaluation of his marks..”.
15. The Supreme Court reiterated the said principle in Board of
Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another4;
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh
Thakur and another5; and Central Board of Secondary
Education and others v. Khushboo Shrivastava and others6.
16. We may also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court
in Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others7. In this case, the Supreme Court carved out an exception
and held it as an exception to the general rule that a re-evaluation is
3
(2004)6 SCC 714
4
(2004)13 SCC 383
5
(2010) 6 SCC 759
6
(2014)14 SCC 523
7
(2018) 2 SCC 357
– 21 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
not permitted if the relevant rules or regulations do not provide for
the same. The Court observed as under:
“30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of
an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the
court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process
of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in
rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed;
** ** ** ** **
30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate.”
17. It is relevant to note that in the present case there is no
allegation of any malpractice, non-evaluation of answers, procedural
irregularity or lack of competence on the part of the examiners.
However, the petitioners contended that the re-evaluation of the
answer scripts is warranted in exceptional circumstances where
they had secured an aggregate of 50% overall marks in the theory
papers, but were declared failed on account of their marks in one
paper falling short of the threshold of 40 marks. The writ petitioners
contend that in these peculiar circumstances, grave injustice would
be caused if their answer sheets are not re-assessed.
– 22 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
18. We find little merit in the aforesaid contention. The criteria for
clearing an examination are well defined. Regulation 8.4 clearly
stipulates that the student must meet the twin conditions to pass the
examination. First, the aggregate marks in all theory papers are
required to be 200 out of 400 or above. And second, the student
must secure at least 40 marks in each paper.
19. The fact that the students have secured more than 200 out of
400 marks in aggregate but have failed to clear one or more theory
papers is not an exceptional circumstance that would warrant any
interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
20. The criteria that a student must secure a minimum 50%
aggregate mark in all papers and secure a minimum threshold pass
mark in each paper are neither novel nor unusual. It would be
impermissible for the Court to direct re-evaluation of answer scripts
solely because a student has not secured the minimum marks
required for clearing an examination.
21. The learned single judge directed the re-evaluation of the
papers, as the court felt it was equitable and necessary for
– 23 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
substantial justice. We are unable to concur with the said view.
There is no allegation that the evaluation is biased or that the
evaluators were incompetent to assess the papers. In the
circumstances, absent any manifest error in the evaluation of
answer scripts or the evaluation process, there is no justification –
either on the ground of equity or law – to interfere with the
examination results. Furthermore, such a direction to refer the
answer scripts for re-evaluation is expressly prohibited under
Regulation 8.4(c) of the Regulations.
22. In Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra
Thrinadh and others8, the Supreme Court referred to the decision
in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and had observed that:
“As observed and held by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh
that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the
matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an
answer sheet”.
23. There is yet another contention advanced on behalf of the writ
petitioners, which requires consideration.
8
(2022) 18 SCC 716
– 24 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
24. It was contented that Regulation 8.4(b) also contemplates that
the answer scripts be subjected to a third evaluation if the difference
between the two evaluators is 15% or more of the total marks
prescribed for the paper.
25. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the
variation of 15% in the marks awarded by the two evaluators ought
to be the difference in the marks awarded as a percentage of the
average marks awarded by the two evaluators and not the
maximum marks for the paper in question.
26. It is apparent that the provision for referring the answer scripts
to a third evaluator when the difference in valuations is large is to
mitigate any inherent bias or arbitrariness in the subjective
evaluation. Thus, the University has set the minimum variation as
15% of the total marks prescribed to trigger a reference to the third
evaluator. There is little doubt that the object of the regulation is to
make a reference to a third evaluator when variation in marks by the
two evaluators is large. The said object would be better served if the
measure of the difference between the two evaluations is the
percentage of the marks awarded, rather than the percentage of the
maximum prescribed marks. In cases where the marks awarded
– 25 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
are relatively low, the minimum variation of 15% of the maximum
marks prescribed would be satisfied only if the variation is
significantly larger than in cases where the marks awarded by the
evaluators are higher. Since the maximum marks prescribed for all
theory papers is 100; 15% of the total marks prescribed for the
paper would be 15. The reference to the third evaluator would be
made only if the variation between evaluations exceeds 15 marks.
This variation in absolute terms is significantly higher in percentage
terms of the marks actually awarded, if the marks awarded are
relatively low. Illustratively, if one examiner evaluates the answer
script and awards 10 marks, while the other awards 24, the variation
in the marks calculated in reference to the marks awarded is huge, it
is 140% of the marks awarded by the evaluator awarding 10 marks
and 58.3% of the marks awarded by the evaluator awarding 24
marks. Despite the said huge variation, where the marks awarded
by the second evaluator is 240% of the marks awarded by the first
evaluator, reference would not be made to a third evaluator. This
variation of 15 marks, would progressively decrease in percentage
terms where the marks awarded by the evaluators is higher.
Illustratively, if the first evaluator awards 80 marks and the second
– 26 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
evaluator awards 95 marks, the variation is merely 18.75% of the
marks awarded by the first evaluator and 15.78% of the marks
awarded by the second evaluator. This variation is significantly
lower in percentage terms than in a case where the first evaluator
has awarded 10 marks and the second evaluator has awarded 24
marks. Nonetheless, a reference would be made to the third
evaluator in the case of 80 and 95 marks, and not in the case of 10
and 24 marks.
27. In our view, it would perhaps have served the object better if
the minimum variation had not been pegged to the total marks
prescribed for the paper, but to the marks as awarded by the
examiners. However, this is a matter for the authorities framing the
regulations to consider.
28. Since there is no ambiguity in the plain language of
Regulation 8.4(b) of the Regulations, we are unable to interpret the
said regulation to require reference to a third evaluator where the
variation in the marks awarded is less than 15. The expression “total
marks prescribed for the paper” cannot be construed to mean
anything other than the maximum marks for the paper; that is 100
marks.
– 27 –
WA No. 2050 of 2025
C/W WA No. 2049 of 2025
WA No. 2073 of 2025
AND 5 OTHERS
29. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, and the
impugned orders are set aside.
30. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KMV