Karnataka High Court
Kishore A C vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 30 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9023 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.9816 OF 2024, 10806 OF 2024,
11407 OF 2024, 16065 OF 2024, 16121 OF 2024,
23089 OF 2024, 31341 OF 2024, 31762 OF 2024,
32027 OF 2024, 3488 OF 2025 & 4756 OF 2025
IN WP NO.9023/2024
BETWEEN:
1. KUM. AISHWARYA PATIL
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVESHWARA COLONY
Digitally signed by OPP LITTLE ANGEL SCHOOL
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA RAICHUR-584 101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. KUM. NAVYA
D/O SURYA PRAKASH G
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT GM INFINITE E-CITY TOWNSHIP
PHASE II 2ND FLOOR,
ELECTRONIC CITY
BENGALURU-560 100.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE
PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY
CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE
EXAMINERS; AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
IN WP NO.9816/2024
BETWEEN:
1. DARSHAN R.
S/O C RAJESH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR JAIN TEMPLE,
2ND ROAD,
HOSADURGA,
CHITRADURGA-577 527.
2. KUM. SAKSHI G S
D/O DR. SANATH KUMAR G K
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT SAKSHI 7TH CROSS TULASI ROAD
GOKULA EXTENSION
TUMAKURU-572 102.
... PETITONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE
PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY
CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE
EXAMINERS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.10806/2024
BETWEEN:
1. CHINMAYA S L
S/O LOKESH S K
AGED 20 YEARS,
R/AT NO.73,
3RD FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
R K GARDEN, NEW BEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 054.
2. NIHAR BORA
S/O RAJANAND BORA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
AGED 21 YEARS,
R/AT BOYS HOSTEL
VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
WHITEFIELD EPIP ZONE
BENGALURU-560 066.
3. KALEKHAN SAFIULLA KHAN
S/O KALEKHAN SAMEER KHAN
AGED 21 YEARS,
R/AT BOYS HOSTEL
VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
WHITEFIELD EPIP ZONE
BENGALURU-560 066.
4. BHUVAN GOWDA G
S/O GAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
YALUVAHALLI VIJAYAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL-562 135.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE
PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY
CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE
EXAMINERS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.11407/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . PRAJWAL JOGAR
S/O VITHOBA JOGAR
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT KAMALAMMA GUDI ONI,
TUMMINAKATTI,
HAVERI-581 119.
2 . TASMIYA RAFIK AHAMED KITTUR
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
D/O RAFIK AHAMED
AGED 23 YEARS
R/AT NOL.196,
ARAVIND NAGAR, KARWAR ROAD
OLD HUBLI,
DHARWAD-580 024.
3 . ROHIT
S/O HUSANAPPA
AGED 25 YEARS
R/AT NO.MIG-20,
2ND PHASE, ADARSH NAGAR
NEAR RING ROAD
KALABURGI-585 105.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE
PETITIONERS ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY
CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE
EXAMINERS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.16065/2024
BETWEEN:
1 . HIMANSHU RANJAN
S/O SHEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT BOYS HOSTEL,
SRINIVAS MEDICAL COLLEGE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 011.
2 . GURU S H
S/O SHARANA BHUPALAREDDY,
AGED 22 YEARS,
NEAR DYAVAMMA TEMPLE,
NAIKAL,
YADGIR-585 319.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
NO.1;
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
NO.2)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES
OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS
OF THE PETITIONERS; DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY SEND
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE
VALUATOR FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS OF THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY ALL THE
EXAMINERS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF
EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.16121/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SKANDASHREE V DEV
D/O M K VASUDEVA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 5, MALLANAYAKANAHALLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR-563 136.
2. ATIK ISHRAK
S/O AMIN SARIF,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT GARIGAON,
FAKIRPARA, MAZAR SARIF ROAD,
GUWAHATI,
ASSAM-781012.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
BENGALURU-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE
ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE
PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.23089/2024
BETWEEN:
1. PRIYA GHOSH
D/O PRADEEP GHOSH
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT TOWER M 1170
DIVYASHREE REPUBLIC OF
WHITEFIELD EPIP ZONE,
WHITEFIELD
BENGALURU-560 066.
2. HARSHA METI
S/O UMESH METI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
TIMMAPUR RAMPUR
BAGALKOTE-587 207.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY SEND THE
PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF
THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY ALL THE EXAMINERS
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF UPCOMING
EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.31341/2024
BETWEEN:
1. VISHRUTHI ACHAR
S/O MAHESH KUMAR M
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
NO.9/14, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
SREEKANTESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
2. DINESH REDDY
S/O VEERENDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/ATNO 8-9-386/A,
GURU NANAK COLONY
BEHIND NEW TOWN
POLICE STATION,
BIDAR - 562 101.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
3. TARANUM S
S/O SYED AMEIN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
NO.540, ARALIKATTE STREET,
BLUE BUILDING
NEELKANT NAGAR,
NANJANGUD
MYSORE - 571 301.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE
ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE
PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 31762/2024
BETWEEN:
1. HARINNI SHREE
D/O ANBAZHAGAN R
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
NO. 23/F, 13B HIGH SCHOOL STREET
ALLINAGARAM THENI
TAMIL NADU - 625 531.
2. H SYED FARAZ
S/O H SYED BILAL
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT RAHAMANIYA SAW MILL
KELAGINA KERI
SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 428.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE
ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE
PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
IN WP NO.32027/2024
BETWEEN:
1. KISHORE A C
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR A L
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
NO.25 SAPTAGIRI
3RD MAIN ROAD,
GANGANAGAR, R T NAGAR
BENGALURU -560 032.
2 . SINDHOORA S
D/O SATHYENDRA SALIAN B
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT 2-23/31, 2ND MAIN,
2ND CROSS,
MARUTHINAGARA,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 019.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES
OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS
OF THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.3488/2025
BETWEEN:
1 . RUSHABH R
S/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED 23 YEARS,
R/AT EWS-23,
NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
NEAR WATER TANK,
WARD NO.5,
RAICHUR-584 101.
2 . YASHIKA VERMA
D/O RAKESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2170, 1ST FLOOR,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
NEAR IMT CHOWK, SECTOR-64,
BALLABGARH, FARIDABAD,
HARYANA-121 004.
3 . OJAS N S
S/O SUNDARESH N S
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
VIDYANAGAR,
R/AT 5450/B-18,
BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE-577 005.
4 . JISHAN ATHANI
S/O RIYAZ,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT SUDANGIRI ROAD,
SADHUNGUDI ROAD,
MAHALINGAPUR,
BAGALKOT-587 312.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE
PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF THE
BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY ALL THE EXAMINERS
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF EXAMINATIONS; AND
ETC.
IN WP NO.4756/2025
BETWEEN:
1. NAVNEETH KUSHWAHA
S/O AJAY KUMAR PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO. 27(A) KAILASH NAGAR
TIWARIPUR-2 JAJMAU
SHIWANS TENRAY
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
KANPUR NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH - 208 010.
2. ADITHYA IRUDIA SATHYENDRA RAJU
S/O IRUDIA RAJ SATHYENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/AT NO. 531, 5TH BLOCK
3RD FLOOR RANKA COURT APTS
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT
HALASURU
BENGALURU - 560 008.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
(PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA)
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8
DWARKAR PHASE 1
NEW DELHI-110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO 1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE
PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR
FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY
CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE
EXAMINERS; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought
for writ of mandamus to the respondent-University
seeking re-valuation by one more Evaluator in view of
discrepancy of marks allotted by two Evaluators and to
announce the results, inter-alia, sought for direction to
respondent-University to provide key answers to the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
Examiners/Evaluators for evaluating the question
papers of MBBS Examination conducted by respondent-
University. It is also forthcoming from some of the writ
petitions' prayer, that petitioners have challenged the
Notification dated 26.08.2024 issued by the
respondent-University, declining to provide key
answers to the descriptive type of questions so also
letter/Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 issued by
respondent-University.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the
petitioners are pursuing I year MBBS Course under RS-
4 Scheme (2020 Batch) and respondent - Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences is regulating the Calendar
of MBBS Course. It is the case of the petitioners that,
few students have been declared as 'attempted/failed'
in the I Year MBBS examination and have consequently
been denied the opportunity to appear in the upcoming
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
supplementary examinations. It is also stated that,
during valuation process, there was a difference of 15%
marks, awarded by two Evaluators and accordingly, it is
contended by the petitioners that, such difference has
been considered as reckless evaluation process, tainted
with errors manifesting in the entire system of
valuation. The petitioners have made an application
seeking photocopies of the answer books of the failed
subjects and thereafter, realized that evaluations have
been conducted without proper application of mind by
the concerned qualified evaluators and also such
photocopies of answer sheets indicate erratic, arbitrary
and erroneous valuations, result in fail of such
students, by the University. The petitioners have also
urged that in several instances of the two Evaluators,
the significant difference in evaluating the same
questions and answers and further awarding less than
required marks for the valid written answers and
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
therefore, the petitioners have contended that, they
have become victims of poor assessment and lack of
applicability of mind by the Evaluators and accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court.
3. It is also contended by the petitioners in
some of the writ petitions that, the respondent-
University has failed to provide the qualified Evaluators
and Examiners with reference to key answers, key
words, key points, key phrases / terms, relevant to
each questions. This failure, according to the
petitioners, has led to inconsistent and unregulated
valuation, allowing Evaluators to engage in unchecked
and subjective assessment. It is the main grievance of
the petitioners that the respondent-University be
directed to provide key answers for all descriptive-type
questions in the MBBS examinations to ensure
consistency and objectivity in the evaluation process.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
The petitioners also challenge the Notification dated
26.08.2024 issued by the respondent-University, which
declines to furnish key answers for descriptive
questions. Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed by the
petitioners.
4. I have heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel
Sri. Pradeep Patil and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, for the
petitioners-students; Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel
Smt. Farah Fathima and Smt. Mamatha Kulkarni, for
the respondent-University and Sri. N. Khetty, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
5. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, invited the
attention of the Court to the marks awarded by
Evaluators Nos.1 and 2 at Annexure-G2 (Valuation
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
Slip) in W.P.No.9023 of 2024, wherein, the Evaluator
No.1 has awarded 22 marks and the Evaluator No.2
awarded 55 marks; Annexure-K2 (Valuation Slip) in
W.P.No.10806 of 2024, wherein Evaluator No.1 has
awarded 29 marks and Evaluator No.2 has awarded
43.5 marks and in this connection, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, further invited
the attention of the Court to the Minutes of 187th
Syndicate Meeting held on 26.08.2024 (Annexure-K in
W.P.No.9023 of 2024) and argued that, the Academic
Council resolved that key answers shall not be provided
to evaluators for essay-type questions across any
course. It was further resolved that key answers would
be supplied only for multiple-choice questions/objective
questions, carrying one mark. In the backdrop of these
aspects, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated
05.09.2022 (Annexure-D in W.P.No.9023 of 2024)
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
which provides for procedure for valuation.
Emphasising on of these aspects, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the
Court to the order dated 18.03.2025 in W.P.No.16960
of 2024 and contended that, this Court, has pointed out
about the large gap in awarding the marks by Evaluator
Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, the Academic Council was
directed to consider the case of the petitioners therein
as well as in the interest of students to provide key
answers / model answers to avoid discrepancy in
evaluation of the answer scripts of the students and
therefore, contended that, the request made by the
petitioners for providing key/model answers for
descriptive-type questions deserves favourable
consideration to avoid further discrepancies in the
evaluation of students' answer scripts.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
6. It is also pleaded by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the evaluation has been made by
unqualified Evaluators, resulting in erratic and
arbitrariness in awarding marks. It is also argued that,
the National Medical Commission's competency based
UG Curriculum for Indian Medical Graduates, prescribes
the model question paper with key answers is a part of
the examination process and same has not been
adhered to by the respondent-University. It is also
argued that, if key answers for descriptive answers be
made available by the Paper Setters, same would result
in avoiding further complication and non-application of
mind by the Evaluators, resulting in fair evaluation.
7. Learned Senior Counsel representing the
petitioners further submitted that, one Evaluator
awarded zero marks and another Evaluator awarded
two marks for the same question, which tends to
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
discrepancy in awarding marks and therefore, key
notes / key answers even in descriptive questions be
provided by the Paper Setters, and as such, sought for
interference by this Court. In this regard, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners, refers to the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pranav Verma & Others vs. The Registrar General
of the High Court of Punjab And Haryana At
Chandigarh & Another in W.P.(CIVIL) No.565 of 2019
disposed of on 03.05.2018, reported in (2020) 15 SCC
377 and contended that, where there is large gap
between the marks awarded by the first and second
Evaluators, same would affect the career of the
students and accordingly, sought for interference in the
matter.
8. Per contra, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
submitted that, valuation of the answer scripts of the
petitioners is governed by 'Ordinance-Notification
governing Central Assessment Programme' (CAP) for
theory paper assessment of all Under Graduate Courses
dated 05.09.2022 issued by the respondent-University.
The above Ordinance provides for general evaluation by
Examiner/Evaluator No.1 and thereafter, re-valuation
by the Examiner/Evaluator No.2. The University shall
consider the highest of the marks awarded by either of
the two Evaluators and therefore, the higher score
between the evaluators shall be considered for
declaring the results and therefore, the petitioners have
no grievance in respect of the Notification/Ordinance
dated 05.09.2022. It is also argued by the learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent-University, that this
Court in W.P.No.11688 of 2023 and other connected
matters vide order dated 13.10.2023, upheld the
Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and therefore, the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
question relating to revaluation attained finality and in
that view of the matter, the prayers challenging the
Notification/Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and
26.08.2024, do not survive for consideration.
9. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent-University
elaborately, explained about difficulty in providing key
answers to the descriptive type of questions as such
questions require a detailed answer by the paper setter
and pointed out that, the essential features be made
available for examiners and that itself cannot be
considered as a key answer to the descriptive type of
questions. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent-University, submitted that, providing
key answers to descriptive questions in respect of MD-
Homeopathy was questioned before this Court in
W.P.No.16960 of 2024 and this Court vide order dated
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
18.03.2025, dismissed the writ petition, however,
directed the respondent-University to provide key
answers.
10. It is also submitted by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa,
learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners in these writ
petitions have been admitted during 2019-20 (RS-4
Batch) and as per Regulation 7.7, (Annexure-R1 in
Statement of Objections). The students are permitted
to pass the first Professional Examination in four
attempts and as such, since the petitioners herein have
not passed the first Professional Examination as per the
said Regulation, petitioners have no legal right to claim
the relief as sought for in these writ petitions.
11. Nextly, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that
this Court exercises limited jurisdiction in matters
involving academic issues. He further contended that
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
questions relating to academic policy, including
evaluation procedures and the decisions to provide key
answers for descriptive-type questions, fall within the
exclusive domain of academic bodies and as such
sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
12. Sri. N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for
the National Medical Commission (for short 'NMC')
submitted that, respondent-University had addressed a
letter dated 20.11.2024 to the NMC, seeking
clarification on the provision for key words / model
answers for evaluating descriptive type questions of
theory examinations for Medical Under Graduate and
Post Graduate Courses and upon consideration thereof,
a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship
of the President of the NMC and after deliberations, the
Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the
detailed key answers required for the descriptive
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
questions are useful, however, analytical skills required
in medical practice, however, providing key answers to
long and short descriptive questions in MBBS
examinations is not feasible for several reasons
mentioned in the Notification dated 13.12.2024, and as
such, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
13. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that, petitioners herein were pursuing I year
MBBS Course under RS-4 Scheme (2020 Batch)
regulated by the respondent-University. As per the
Notification dated 18.08.2012, the prevailing scheme
permits only a single round of valuation with no
provision for revaluation. The only recourse available to
aggrieved students is to apply for re-totalling.
Thereafter, Notification dated 01.02.2021 was issued
by the respondent-University, wherein, the scheme of
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
valuation is being conducted by a panel of two internal
Examiners/Evaluators and in the event of difference of
marks between the two Evaluators is 15% or more,
then such answer scripts shall be referred to the third
valuator and best of two higher marks be reckoned for
announcing the results. The said Notification dated
01.02.2021 came to be set aside by this Court in
W.P.No.13626 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021. Thereafter,
the respondent-University has issued another
Notification dated 05.09.2022 and same was
questioned in W.P.No.23089 of 2024, which provides
procedure for valuation. Clause 4 of the said
Notification provides for procedure for valuation and
Clause 5 provides for procedure for computation of
results. Clause 4 and 5 reads as under:
" 4. PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION:
All answer scripts of all undergraduate health
sciences courses of RGUHS be subjected to general
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
evaluation by the first eligible examiner and re-
evaluation by the second eligible examiner of the
respective faculties through the digital valuation
system before the computation of results.
5. PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF RESULTS:
The highest of the total marks awarded by either of
the two evaluators i.e., best total marks awarded by
any of the two evaluators for the paper shall be
considered for computation of the results. If any
decimals occurring during individual evaluator total
marks awarded by the examiner shall be rounded off
to the next higher value for the purpose of
computation of results."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In the backdrop of the above Notification
issued by the respondent-University, valuation by a
third Evaluator or providing re-valuation does not arise
in respect of the students of MBBS. Under similar
circumstances, student of the Homeopathy Medical
College, questioned the Ordinance governing valuation
by the fourth valuator without a model answer key in
W.P.No.16960 of 2024 and this Court, vide order dated
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
18.03.2025, at paragraph 18.21 to 19.3 held as
follows:
"18.21.The manner in which cases have been
coming up before this Court, if the numbers are
tabulated, it would be clear to the University that
thousands of petitions are coming up as regards the
discrepancy in the valuation on account of which, a
student has been declared failed.
18.22. It is not only the number of litigations that
has to be seen, but the number of lives which are
dependent on such evaluation too, more particularly
students in the younger age group whose confidence
could be adversely affected if they are declared
failed on account of improper evaluation. The impact
of this on the psyche and the future of the student,
on the family of the student, the society as a whole,
as also on the college and the University need not
be more emphasized. The reasoning of the
Academic Council would indicate that there are
30,000 subjects being taught and there are already
10 question papers for each subject which have
been prepared that would mean that the University
has no problem or difficulty in preparing 30,000
question papers, but has expressed only difficulty as
regards preparing corresponding model answers or
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
key answers. The Academic Council would have to
reconsider its decision on this aspect. The very
same person, who is setting the question papers
would be the best person to prepare the key
answers or model answers. Thus, while preparing
the question paper, the model answers or key
answers could also be prepared by the very same
person, who has set/drafted the question paper.
This would not cause any administrative strain on
the University, but would go a long way in catering
to the difficulties faced by the students, while doing
so the above aspects pointed out could be
considered apart from those that may be indicated
as guidelines by the Academic Council approved by
the Syndicate. 18.23.The approach of the Academic
Council apparently has been to find fault with and or
find difficulties in preparing the model answers and
key answers. The Academic Council ought to have
actually looked into how to solve the problems of
the students, the colleges and the University, thus
bringing a stop to these kinds of litigations which
are a pain for everyone. No student wants to come
to court to agitate their grievances. Thus, I am of
the considered opinion that the Academic Council
would be well advised to reconsider the decision and
appoint an external agency to look into this aspect
and work towards providing model answers and key
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
answers by working out a methodology as to how it
can be provided rather than to state the difficulties
of providing it. This being the need of the day, I am
sure the Academic Council and the Syndicate would
take this in the right perspective and implement a
proper system.
19. Answer to Point No. (vii): What Order?
19.1. In view of my findings to all of the above
points, I do not find any discrepancy in the ordinance
issued for governing the evaluation process of the
examinations for Post Graduate including Diploma
and Super Speciality courses, nor is there any
manifest arbitrariness in the ordinance issuing
process.
19.2. As regards the manner of evaluation, I do not
find any discrepancy in evaluation of the answer
script of the petitioner, however I find the need for
training the evaluators before giving them the work
of evaluation, hence the University is directed to
carry out necessary training in that regard.
19.3. In so far as providing key answers/model
answers, the Syndicate and Academic Council are
directed to reconsider their earlier decision in terms
of the observations made hereinabove."
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
15. Though the above Judgment is with regard to
the discipline of Homeopathy, however, this Court
directed the respondent-University to reconsider the
decision to provide key answers / model answers to the
descriptive questions also. It is also to be noted from
the NMC letter dated 13.12.2024, wherein, an
observation has been made to provide key words or
key answers in certain contexts in Medical Course,
however, had taken decision that, on account of
complicity and depth of medical education necessitated
a more comprehensive approach to assessment that
can evaluate thinking, problem solving and effective
communication and finally, the NMC agreed with the
Minutes of the 187th Syndicate Meeting held on
26.08.2024 on the subject 6(1). It is also forthcoming
from these writ petitions that the valuation made on
certain answer sheets depicts large gap of more than
25 to 30 marks by each of the Evaluators. In that view
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
of the matter, though I am conscious of interference by
this Court by exercising judicial review in respect of
educational matters which is limited as per the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another V. State of
Rajasthan and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC
309, however, the observation made by the NMC in
their letter dated 13.12.2024 infuse certain aspects
relating to providing essential key answers in
descriptive questions to enable the Evaluators to know
the broader view in assessing the answers. It is also to
be noted that, there is no impediment for the
respondent-University to regulate a relevant Rule by
directing the Paper Setters to provide essential features
as an answer to the descriptive questions which would
resolve the grievance of many of the students
questioning in large number of writ petitions before this
Court. It is also to be noted that, an argument was
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
advanced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra V. Devarsh
Nath Gupta and others reported in 2023 SCC Online
SC 970 with regard to providing possible options in
descriptive questions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above case, made an observation to the effect that,
in the absence of any provision under the Statute or
Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Courts should not
generally direct for revaluation.
16. In the case of CBSC Vs. Kushboo
Srivastava reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523, the
respondent therein has challenged the results of the
examination of the All India Pre Medical-Pre Dental
Extract examination 2007 seeking for re-valuation of
her answer sheet and the relief sought for by the
petitioner therein came to be declined on the ground
that there was no provision for the same. It is also
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kanpur University vs. Sameer
Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309, paragraph 16
reads as under:
"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the
University, contended that no challenge should be
allowed to be made to the correctness of a key
answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We
agree that the key answer should be assumed to be
correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it
should not be held to be wrong by an inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be
wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no
reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular
subject would regard as correct. The contention of
the University is falsified in this case by a large
number of acknowledged textbooks, which are
commonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks
leave no room for doubt that the answer given by
the students is correct and the key answer is
incorrect."
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
17. The aforementioned dictum was reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay
Singh and Others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, the onus lies on the
candidate to clarify and demonstrate that, the key
answer is incorrect. It was also observed that the court
can recommend few steps to be taken by the
examination authority namely, a) Establishing a system
of moderation b) avoid any ambiguity in the questions,
including those that might be caused by translation and
c) prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect
question and no marks be assigned to such question.
18. I am also conscious about the fact that, this
Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the
policy evolved by respondent-University, however,
taking into consideration repeated writ petitions having
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
been filed challenging the marks allotted in the answer
scripts, I am of the opinion that, it is relevant for the
respondent-University to provide essential key answers
for descriptive questions to avoid ambiguity in marking
as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok
Haranahalli appearing for the students/petitioners
demonstrates the large gap between the marking of
Evaluator No.1 and Evaluator No.2 in allotting marks. It
is the grievance of each of the students/petitioners in
these batch of petitions, pointing out the vagueness
and impropriety in marking of answer scripts, that too,
in professional course like Medicine, Dental, etc., have
greater impact on the career of the students. Perusal of
the statement of objections filed by the respondent
No.2-NMC would indicate that by providing key answers
to Evaluators/Examiners, meets the need for
standardising the process of evaluation sought for by
the respondent-University. This would minimise the
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
vagaries of marking by different evaluators and
regarding the same, it cannot be totally brush-aside
that, the contentions raised by the petitioners in these
batch petitions with regard to providing essential key
answers to the descriptive questions. While it may be
practically difficult for a paper setter to provide detailed
key answers for descriptive questions, it is still feasible
for them to outline essential points or key elements
expected in the answers. If the respondent-University
adopts a policy requiring paper setters to provide such
key answers, it would assist Evaluators in
understanding the expected responses from students.
This, in turn, would help minimize the difficulties faced
by aggrieved students and promote a fairer evaluation
process and transparency be maintained during the
evaluation process. Hence, I pass the following:
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
WP No. 9023 of 2024
C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024
WP No. 10806 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed in part;
ii) The Syndicate and Academic Council of the
respondent-University is directed to
reconsider the matter afresh, specifically
with regard to providing essential key
answers or model answers for descriptive
questions, in order to prevent anomalies or
ambiguities during the initial evaluations
and to ensure fairness and transparency in
the examination process.
iii) The respondent-University is directed to
forward the answer scripts of the
petitioners, in all these writ petitions, to an
additional Evaluator for fresh assessment,
in light of the significant discrepancy
between the marks awarded by the
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
Evaluators Nos. 1 and 2 and to complete
the entire process within two weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order and the results shall be announced
forthwith. In the event the petitioners are
found to have passed the examination
after evaluation by the additional
Evaluator, such petitioners are entitled to
all consequential benefits arising
therefrom, as applicable.
iv) It is made clear that the direction issued
by this court with regard to, additional
evaluation of the answers scripts of the
petitioners herein by the respondent-
University, is only confined to the relief
sought for in these writ petitions and
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29419
HC-KAR AND 9 OTHERS
cannot be construed as precedent for any
other cases, as such.
v) In view of the above observations, the
validity of the notifications dated
26.08.2024 and 05.09.2022 issued by the
respondent-University shall be examined in
the appropriate proceedings.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
