Karnataka High Court

Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... vs Dr. Mangukiya Axay Kanthilal on 26 June, 2025

                            -1-

                     WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                         PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                            AND
            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI


                WRIT APPEAL NO. 448/2025
                            c/w
          WRIT APPEAL NOS. 465/2025, 597/2025.
              602/2025, 603/2025, 604/2025,
            628/2025, 630/2025 AND 654/2025

 IN WA NO.448/2025:

 BETWEEN:

        RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
        4TH T BLOCK EAST,
        PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGAR,
        BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 041.
        BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
        DR. RIYAZ BASHA S
        AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
                                              ...APPELLANT

 (BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
     MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

 AND:

 1.     DR. K. SREE LAXMI
        D/O. AMARA LINGA REDDY,
        AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
        RESIDING AT KVG MEDICAL,
        PG GIRLS HOSTEL COURT ROAD,
        KURANJIBHAG SULIYA,
        DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 327.
                          -2-

                  WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


2.   DR. GARIKAPATI INDU VARSHINI
     D/O. G ANJANEYA PRASAD,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     R/AT GLOBAL COURT APARTMENT 608,
     NEAR KUNTIKANA JUNCTION,
     MANGALORE - 575 004.

3.   DR. VAISHNAVI T
     35, NO.20, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
     KGF, MUNNIREDDY LAYOUT VTC.,
     MAHADEVAPUR P O,
     BENGALURU - 560 048.


4.   DR. VINAY KUMAR. R
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     S/O RAMA KRISHNA GOWDA,
     CHATRSKODIHALLI,
     BEGLIHOSAHALLI POST,
     KOLAR - 563 101.


5.   DR. KAVURI SRI HARSHA
     D/O KAVURI KRISHNA RAO,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     404/8/1/101
     PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
     H.NO.1 13 MAYER STREET,
     NIZAMABAD NEAR RAGHAVA HIGH SCHOOL,
     ANDHRA PRADESH - 503 001.

     AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PG HOSTEL,
     KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
     RESEARCH CENTRE,
     MANGALORE - 575 018.


6.   JYOTHI A
     D/O ANJANAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.234/40,
     BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
     YANAPPA FARM HOUSE,
     THIGALANAPALAYA, PINYA POST,
     BANGALORE - 560 058.
                               -3-

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals



7.     DR. KARUNYA K
       D/O. KANNADASAN,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       R/A. NO.23, 2ND CROSS,
       MCECHS LAYOUT, PHASE I,
       HEGDE NAGAR,
       BENGALURU - 560 077.

8.     DR. ATUL SURESH
       S/O C K SURESH,
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
       R/AT PG HOSTAL AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
       MANGALORE - 575 004.

9.     DR. KAUSHIK D S
       S/O. T DEMAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       119, 1ST CROSS,
       NIVEDITHA NATTAR,
       MYSORE - 570 022.

10 .   DR. SHREYAS V SORAGAVI
       S/O DR. V R SORAGAVI,
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
       R/AT SRI SAI 46, 4TH CROSS,
       JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
       SANJAY NAGAR, RMV 2ND STAGE,
       BANGALORE - 560 094.

11 .   DR. ABHISHEK G.
       S/O GANGADHARAPPPA S.,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       HORAKEDEVARAPURA PO HD PURA,
       HOLALKERE TALUK,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557.

12 .   DR. KIRTHI KIRAN
       S/O K SAMPATH,
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       R/AT 36N MADHUNIVAS 33RD MAIN,
       5TH CROSS,
                            -4-

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


       OPP SANDHYA THEATER,
       MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT,
       1ST STAGE,
       BANGALORE - 560 068.


13 .   DR. POOJA J.P
       D/O PUTTASWAMY JK,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
       R/AT GURUKRIPA, 4TH 6 CROSS,
       40 FEET ROAD,
       MAHALAXMI NAGAR,
       BATAWADE, TUMKUR - 572 103.

14 .   DR. SYEDA ASRA FATIMA
       W/O. DR. IRFAN VLLAH QUADRI,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       NO.14, DISPENSARY ROAD,
       KALASIPALYAM,
       BENGALURU - 560 002.

15 .   NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
       POCKET-14, SECTOR - 8,
       DWARKA PHASE-1,
       NEW DELHI - 110 077.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3, R4,
    R6-R11, R13 AND R14;
    MR. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
    MR. YATISH S., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R5 AND R12;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R15)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-3438/2025 AND CONNECTED WRIT
PETITIONS AND DISMISS THE WP FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
ETC.,
                            -5-

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


IN WA NO.465/2025:

BETWEEN:

     NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
     POCKET NO.14 SECTOR-8,
     DWARAKA, PHASE -1,
     NEW DELHI - 110 077.

     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   DR. K. SREE LAXMI
     D/O. AMARA LINGA REDDY,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT KVG MEDICAL,
     PG GIRLS HOSTEL COURT ROAD,
     KURANJIBHAG SULIYA,
     DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 327.

2.   DR. GARIKAPATI INDU VARSHINI
     D/O. G ANJANEYA PRASAD,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     R/AT GLOBAL COURT APARTMENT 608,
     NEAR KUNTIKANA JUNCTION,
     MANGALORE - 575 004.

3.   DR. VAISHNAVI T
     35, NO.20, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
     KGF, MUNNIREDDY LAYOUT VTC.,
     MAHADEVAPUR P O,
     BENGALURU - 560 048.

4.   DR. VINAY KUMAR. R
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     S/O RAMA KRISHNA GOWDA,
     CHATRSKODIHALLI,
     BEGLIHOSAHALLI POST,
     KOLAR - 563 101.
                            -6-

                   WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


5.   DR. KAVURI SRI HARSHA
     D/O KAVURI KRISHNA RAO,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     404/8/1/101
     PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
     H.NO.1 13 MAYER STREET,
     NIZAMABAD NEAR RAGHAVA HIGH SCHOOL,
     ANDHRA PRADESH - 503 001.

     AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PG HOSTEL,
     KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
     RESEARCH CENTRE,
     MANGALORE - 575 018.

6.   JYOTHI A
     D/O ANJANAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.234/40,
     BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
     YANAPPA FARM HOUSE,
     THIGALANAPALAYA, PINYA POST,
     BANGALORE - 560 058.

7.   DR. KARUNYA K
     D/O. KANNADASAN,
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
     R/A. NO.23, 2ND CROSS,
     MCECHS LAYOUT, PHASE I,
     HEGDE NAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 077.

8.   DR. ATUL SURESH
     S/O C K SURESH,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
     R/AT PG HOSTAL AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
     MANGALORE - 575 004.

9.   DR. KAUSHIK D S
     S/O. T DEMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
     119, 1ST CROSS, NIVEDITHA NATTAR,
     MYSORE - 570 022.
                           -7-

                   WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals



10 . DR. SHREYAS V SORAGAVI
     S/O DR. V R SORAGAVI,
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
     R/AT SRI SAI 46, 4TH CROSS,
     JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
     SANJAY NAGAR, RMV 2ND STAGE,
     BANGALORE - 560 094.

11 . DR. ABHISHEK G.
     S/O GANGADHARAPPPA S.,
     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
     HORAKEDEVARAPURA PO HD PURA,
     HOLALKERE TALUK,
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557.

12 . DR. KIRTHI KIRAN
     S/O K SAMPATH,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     R/AT 36N MADHUNIVAS 33RD MAIN,
     5TH CROSS, OPP SANDHYA THEATER,
     MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT
     1ST STAGE,
     BANGALORE - 560 068.

13 . DR. POOJA J.P
     D/O PUTTASWAMY JK,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     R/AT GURUKRIPA, 4TH 6 CROSS,
     40 FEET ROAD,
     MAHALAXMI NAGAR,
     BATAWADE, TUMKUR - 572 103.

14 . DR. SYEDA ASRA FATIMA
     W/O. DR. IRFAN VLLAH QUADRI,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
     NO.14, DISPENSARY ROAD,
     KALASIPALYAM,
     BENGALURU - 560 002.

15 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
     4TH T BLOCK EAST,
                            -8-

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


    PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR,
    JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,
    KARNATAKA - 560 041.
    BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
    DR. RIYAZ BASHA S,
    AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R14;
    MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R15)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-3438/2025 AND CONNECTED WRIT
PETITIONS AND DISMISS THE WP FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
ETC.,



IN WA NO.597/2025:

BETWEEN:

       RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
       4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
       BENGALURU - 560 041.

       REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . DR. IRAPPA S LAMANI
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
    S/O SHANKARAPPA,
    RESIDING AT NARENUR L T 2,
    TALUK BADAMI,
                             -9-

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


     DISTRICT BAGALKOT,
     KARNATAKA - 587 206.

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.
     REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No.7220/2025 AND ETC.,


IN WA NO.602/2025:

BETWEEN:

1.     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
       4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
       BENGALURU - 560 070.
       REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHANCELLOR.

2.     THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION
       RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
       4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
       BENGALURU - 560 070.
                                           ...APPELLANTS

(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1 . DR. MANGUKIYA AXAY KANTHILAL
    S/O KANTILAL,
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
    UNI. REG. NO. 21MG349,
                            - 10 -

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


   R/O NO.3, WHITE HOUSE RESIDENCY,
   VALLABHACHARYA ROAD,
   HIRABAUG, VARACHA ROAD,
   SURAT, GUJARAT - 395 006.

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.

   REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No.6734/2025 AND ETC.,


IN WA NO.603/2025:

BETWEEN:

       RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
       4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
       BENGALURU - 560 070.
       REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR EVALUATION.

                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1 . DR. KRUTHI K SHETTY
    D/O KARUNAKARA SHETTY V.,
    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
    AT PRESENT RESIDING AT
    ROOM NO.309,
    PG GIRLS RESIDENT'S HOSTEL,
    AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
    MANGALORE - 575 004.
                            - 11 -

                   WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals



2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA,
    NEW DELHI - 110 077.
     REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP NO.6113/2025 AND ETC.,

IN WA NO.604/2025:

BETWEEN:


1.   RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
     SCIENCES
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 070.
     REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHANCELLOR .

2.
     THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 070.

                                          ...APPELLANTS

(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . DR. NEUSHREE PANI
    D/O NRUSINGHA PANI,
    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                           - 12 -

                   WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


     UNI. REG. NO. 21ME302,
     R/A FLAT NO. 301,
     JAGANNATH BHAVAN SURYA NAGAR,
     BHUBANESHWAR,
     KHORDA DISTRICT,
     ODISHA - 751 003.

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA,
    NEW DELHI - 110 077.
    REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-6767/2025 AND ETC.,


IN WA NO.628/2025:

BETWEEN:

1.   RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 041.
     REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHANCELLOR.

2.   THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION,
     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 041.
                                          ...APPELLANTS

(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
                          - 13 -

                  WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


AND:

1 . DR. AVNEESH LEEKHA
    S/O NARESH KUMAR LEEKHA,
    AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS,
    UNI REG NO. 21YE191,
    R/O NO.29, LIVSTONIA III,
    PRESENTATION FORM,
    PALM GROVES CO-OP HSG SOCIETY,
    B. T. KAWADE ROAD, PUNE,
    MAHARASHTRA - 411 036.

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.

   REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-6758/2025 AND ETC.,



IN WA NO.630/2025:

BETWEEN:

   RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
   4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
   BENGALURU - 560 041.
   REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR EVALUATION.

                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
                            - 14 -

                    WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


AND:


1 . DR. SWATHI KRISHNA V
    D/O HARSHA KUMAR P.,
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
    AT PRESENT RESIDING AT
    ROOM NO.309,
    PG GIRLS RESIDENT'S HOSTEL,
    AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
    MANGALORE - 575 004.

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA,
    NEW DELHI - 110 077.

     REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP NO.6127/2025 AND ETC.,



IN WA NO.654/2025:

BETWEEN:

1.   RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
     SCIENCES
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 041.
     REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR.
                               - 15 -

                       WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


2.   THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION,
     RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
     SCIENCES
     4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 041.
                                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
    MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . DR. SOUMYA B MALLASURE
    D/O BASAVARAJ S MALLASURE
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
    UNI. REG. NO.21ME014
    R/O NO.13, SRI SRINIVASA NILAYA,
    1ST CROSS, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR,
    BANASHANKARI STAGE II,
    BENGALURU - 560 078.


2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
    POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
    DWARAKA,
    NEW DELHI - 110 077.

     REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
20.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP NO.6742/2025 AND ETC.,

       THESE    WRIT   APPEALS    HAVING   BEEN     HEARD   AND
RESERVED       FOR   JUDGMENT    ON    18.06.2025    THIS   DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              - 16 -

                      WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals


CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
             AND
            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

These appeals impugne the order in the writ petitions

as under:

Sl.

Writ Appeal No. Impugned Writ Petitions No. 1 WA No.448/2025 Order dated 24.02.2025 in WP Nos.

(EDN-RES) 3438/2025, 3443/2025, 3445/2025, 3464/2025, 3489/2025, 3525/2025, 3539/2025, 3554/2025, 3556/2025, 3671/2025, 4071/2025, 4089/2025,

2 WA No.465/2025 Order dated 24.02.2025 in WP Nos.

(EDN-RES) 3438/2025, 3443/2025, 3445/2025, 3464/2025, 3489/2025, 3525/2025, 3539/2025, 3554/2025, 3556/2025, 3671/2025, 4071/2025, 4089/2025,

- 17 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions by

stating in paragraphs No.8 to 10 as under:

"8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for consideration is:

"Whether rounding off at a percentage level would be akin to providing grace marks and whether the benefit of the order passed in Dr. Guruprasad's case and other similarly placed petitioners would be applicable to the petitioners as well?"

9. The petitioners are post graduate medical students having failed by a fraction of percentage as stated supra, are knocking at the doors of this Court inter alia contending that the said fraction ought to have been rounded off to the next whole number which would resultantly pass the petitioners. Under the PGMER-2023 Regulation, Regulation 8.4 stipulates that a student should secure a minimum of 40% in each paper with an aggregate of 50% in theory paper and to secure minimum total marks of 200 / 400 for theory and practical plus viva 200/400. It is noticed by this court that the marks obtained by the petitioners, when turned into percentage is arriving at 49.75%, 49.50% and 49.25%. The situation being such that though the petitioners have obtained 197, 198 and 199 out of 200 in theory the percentage, which is arrived is in decimal. In the case of DR.GURUPRASAD stated supra though the decision was rendered during Covid pandemic, the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 permitted to round off

- 18 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

to the next full figure and this court, in DR.GURUPRASAD'S case did not take into account the Covid-19 pandemic, but what was considered by this court is the arithmetical calculation. The Regulations, which was later changed in the year 2020 has now been withdrawn, it is contended by the respondent-RGUHS that rounding off would be akin to granting grace marks. The rounding off a percentage is a matter of arithmetical calculation and not equivalent to granting of grace marks. The PGMER-2023 Regulation does not explicitly prohibit rounding off decimal values in percentage calculation. The percentage to be rounded off to the next whole number is a part of standard mathematical practice. The petitioners who have obtained point percentage, the standard arithmetic rule dictates rounding off to 50%, which is a mathematical adjustment.

10. The point percentage obtained by the students i.e., 0.25%, 0.50% and 0.75% is the marks, which has been obtained and at any rate it cannot be taken away by holding that it has to be 49% and not 50%. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioners and the writ petitions succeed and the petitioners marks in theory examination is rounded off from 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75% to 50% and the respondent University is directed to

- 19 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

consider the petitioners as 'Pass' and issue necessary result sheet accordingly."

2. At the outset we may state here that, Sri. Vivek

Subba Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

respondents No.2, 5 and 12 in WA No.448/2025;

Smt. Sumana Baliga, Advocate appearing for respondents

No.1, 3, 4, 6 to 11, 13 and 14 in WA No.448/2025 and

Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, Advocate appearing for

respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025, 604/2025,

628/2025 and 654/2025 state that, they appear for all the

respondents who were the petitioners before the learned

Single Judge in these appeals and as such, they can be

heard. If that be so, with consent of learned counsel for

the parties, the appeals have been finally heard.

3. The grievance of the respondents before the

learned Single Judge was with regard to inaction on the

part of the appellants herein being National Medical

Commission ('NMC' for short) and Rajiv Gandhi University

of Health Sciences ('University' for short) in not rounding

off the percentage to the next whole number.

- 20 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

4. The case of the respondent-students before the

learned Single Judge was primarily by relying upon the

following decisions passed by this Court, wherein

directions have been issued to the University to round off

the percentage to the next integer based on the ordinance

governing the Post-Graduate (PG) including PG diploma

and super speciality and subscript evaluation promoted by

the notification dated 29.12.2023:

i. Dr. Guruprasad -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University [WP No.11348/2020, decided on 20.10.2020];


ii.    Dr. B. Nagadivya -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University
       of      Health       Sciences                and        Others

[WP No.17479/2021, decided on 30.09.2021];

iii. Rajiv Gandhi University -Vs.- Dr. Naga Divya [RP No.384/2021 in WP No.17479/2021, decided on 08.03.2021];

iv. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -Vs.-

Dr. Neelesh Mehta and Another [WA No.547/2021, decided on 18.06.2021]

5. The case of the appellant-University before the

learned Single Judge was that, the respondent-Students

have failed to secure minimum 200/400 marks in PG

- 21 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

examination held in January 2025 and by seeking a

rounding off, they are literally seeking grace marks of 1 to

3 marks in the form of rounding off of the percentage from

49.25% (197/200 marks), 49.50% (198/200 marks) and

49.75% (199/200 marks) to 50% (200/400 marks) which

is impermissible. It was also their case that, the

judgments on which reliance has been placed were based

on the decision of the syndicate of the University on

12.11.2020, which was to overcome the situation arisen

due to COVID-19 pandemic, whereby the University

resolved to award rounding off, of percentage to the

students and as such, the judgments are not applicable.

In this regard, reliance was placed on the order of this

Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) to contend

that this Court has held the rounding off was allowed as

circumstances were not normal, as the entire country was

under lockdown and the PG students were frontline

workers, who were practically doing COVID duties round

the clock. Large number of doctors have lost their lives.

It is in this background, the syndicate of the University has

- 22 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

taken a policy decision dated 12.11.2020 and as such, the

judgments on which reliance had been placed are not

applicable.

Submissions:

6. The submission of Sri. Nuruddin Khetty, learned

counsel appearing for National Medical Council ('NMC' for

short) in WA No.465/2025 is that, the impugned order

dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is

wholly erroneous being contrary to law and facts and to

the materials placed before the Court. According to him,

the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that,

Regulations of 2023 clearly stipulates that in order to

declare as 'pass' in PG examination, a candidate has to

secure minimum marks of 200/400 in theory component

and minimum marks of 200/400 in practicals plus viva-

voce component and there is no provision for awarding

grace/additional marks. He stated that, the learned Single

Judge has failed to appreciate that Regulation 8.4 of

Regulations of 2023 stipulates the criteria for valuation of

theory papers along with computation of result. It also

- 23 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

states that, the grace marks are not permitted in theory or

practical in PG examinations. According to him, the

regulation contemplates rounding off of marks to nearest

integer (whole number) in theory component at one stage

i.e., during computation of result and the respondent-

students have failed to secure 200 marks despite rounding

up of marks in decimals as per Regulations of 2023. The

respondent-students have, after rounding off decimal

marks to the next highest number as per Regulations of

2023, secured 197, 198 and 199 marks and not 200

marks, as such, they were declared 'fail'. This provision in

Regulations of 2023 has been made only to enable that

upon totaling the marks, there is no decimal such as

197.25, 198.5 or 199.75. Since the rounding off has been

done once already, the total marks have to be taken into

account and added and there is no question of rounding

off once again. There is no reference to percentage

deliberately so as to avoid rounding off. According to him,

the learned Single Judge has failed to understand that, by

changing the requirement for pass from 200 marks out of

400 to 50%, the learned Single Judge has allowed 3 grace

- 24 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

marks be given to the students, which is uncalled for and

for which the Courts have held that they have neither the

competency nor power to do so as the granting or

otherwise is in the domain of the regulator. He also

stated, the learned Single Judge has erred in observing

that, the judgment in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra)

did not take into account COVID-19 pandemic but

arithmetic calculations, which according to him, is not a

correct interpretation of the said judgment. He also stated

that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate

that, the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta

(supra), held that the syndicate's decision dated

12.11.2020 to implement the order in the case of

Dr. Guruprasad (supra) for rounding off of percentage

should be extended to all examinations held during

COVID-19 in respect of PG course by appreciating the fact

that, the PG students undergoing PG courses were

frontline workers and practically doing COVID duties round

the clock and large number of doctors have lost their lives

and in respect of the same, no doctor has denied the

treatment to a patient suffering from COVID-19. In that

- 25 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

sense, the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) or

the later judgments/orders were in the facts of that case

and cannot have application to the facts which arises for

consideration in this batch of appeals as there was no

COVID situation in January 2025. He states, the present

appeals filed by the appellant-NMC need to be allowed and

the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is

liable to be set aside.

7. The submission of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant-University (in all the

appeals) is primarily that, the learned Single Judge has

clearly erred in coming to the conclusion in the common

impugned order dated 24.02.2025 that the respondent-

Students are entitled to the rounding off of the

percentage. According to him, the principle of rounding

off has been stipulated in Post-Graduate Medical Education

Regulations, 2023 ('Regulations of 2023' for short) issued

by the NMC, wherein it is clearly laid down that, a

candidate need to secure minimum marks of 200/400 in

theory and minimum 200/400 in practicals plus viva-voce

- 26 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

component and there is no provision for awarding

grace/additional marks. In this regard, as was stated by

Sri. Khetty for NMC, he has also drawn our attention to

Regulation 8.4 which stipulates the criteria for valuation of

theory papers along with computation of results. A

reading of the said regulation makes it clear that, grace

marks are not permitted in theory or practical in PG

examinations. It is his submission that, the learned Single

Judge failed to appreciate the fact that, the Regulations of

2023 permits rounding off to the nearest integer in theory

component at 1st stage i.e., during computation of results

and concedingly, the respondent-students have failed to

secure 200 marks despite rounding off, of marks in

decimals as per Regulations of 2023 by the appellant-

University. In fact it is his submission that, the

respondent-students after rounding off, of decimal marks

to next higher number as per Regulations of 2023, have

secured 197, 198 and 199 marks and not 200 marks and

they were rightly declared as 'fail'. According to him, the

directions given by the learned Single Judge to round off

the percentage, is not contemplated under the Regulations

- 27 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

of 2023 at the time of computation of results. He stated

that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the

fact that, the appellant-University has not reduced the

percentage of respondent-students to 49%, nor has

reduced the marks of respondent-students in any manner

while computation and declaration of results. He stated,

even the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on

the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Guruprasad

(supra) to hold that, the Court did not take into account

the COVID-19 pandemic and considered arithmetical

calculations is clearly untenable. A related submission of

Sri. Chinnappa is that, the Division Bench's observation in

the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) that syndicate's

decision dated 12.11.2020 to implement the order of

Dr. Guruprasad (supra) for rounding off percentage

should be extended to all examinations held during COVID

in respect of PG course by appreciating the fact that the

PG students undergoing then PG courses were frontline

workers and practically doing COVID duties round the

clock and large number of doctors have lost their lives,

which is not the case herein. In fact, he laid stress on the

- 28 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

fact that the Regulations of 2023 stipulate the rounding

off, of decimal marks to nearest integer while computing

the result and does not stipulate rounding up of

percentage as the same amounts to awarding additional

marks and that no grace marks are permitted in PG

examination either for theory or for practical. The scope

of Regulations of 2023 is only that, the rounding up of

decimal marks to the nearest integer while computing the

result and does not stipulate rounding up of percentage as

the same amounts to awarding dual benefits and also

awarding grace marks, which is impermissible. In support

of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi

University of Health Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Haroon Adoni

[WA No.909/2023, decided on 02.11.2023]. Similarly

he has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Taniya Malik -Vs.-

Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [(2018)

14 SCC 129] and State of U.P. and Another -Vs.-

Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 10].

- 29 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

He seeks setting aside of the impugned order of the

learned Single Judge.

8. On the other hand, Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 5

and 12 in WA No.448/2025 would justify the order passed

by the learned Single Judge to contend that, the issue in

hand being covered by the judgments referred to by the

learned Single Judge and as such, the issue being no more

res integra, the judgment of the learned Single Judge need

no interference. He has drawn our attention to the

judgments/orders which have been referred to by the

learned Single Judge including the order in the case of

Dr. Guruprasad (supra) to contend that, the Court has

interpreted the ordinance issued by the University. It is

not a case that because of COVID reasons the benefit of

rounding off was given to the petitioners therein. In

support of his submissions, Sri. Reddy has drawn our

attention to paragraph No.3(b) of the order of the learned

Single Judge in Dr. Guruprasad's case (supra), wherein

the Court has noted that, since the petitioner therein has

- 30 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

arithmetically secured 49.75%, the said percentage/figure

has to be rounded off to the next whole number, which is

50% as is contemplated in the ordinance. Similarly, he

has drawn our attention to the order of the learned Single

of the Delhi High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and

Another -Vs.- All India Council for Technical

Education (AICTE) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 5102],

wherein according to him, the Court has summed up the

law on the rounding off by referring to the order of the

Himachal Pradesh High Court, which relied upon the

principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of High Court of Hyderabad -Vs.- Murali Mohana

Reddy [Civil Appeals No.73/74 of 2019], wherein the

Court had directed adding of 1 mark or rounding off of

39.76% secured by the petitioner to 40%. In other words,

it is his submission that, rounding off of number is not

alien to the examination process and as such, there is no

reason for the appellants to deny the benefit of rounding

off as has been granted by the learned Single Judge.

Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case

of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) to contend that, therein

- 31 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

also the benefit has been given, wherein the Court has, on

the basis of the policy decision taken by the syndicate on

12.11.2020 for rounding off the percentage, which aspect

has been conceded by the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant-University, has not interfered with the judgment

of the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he has also relied

upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Haroon Adoni

(supra) to contend that, the benefit of rounding off was

granted to the petitioner therein based on the order in the

case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) and there is no reason to

deny the benefit thereof to the respondent-students

herein. In other words, the learned Single Judge has

rightly granted the benefit to the respondent-students

herein. He laid stress on the fact that, in appeal by the

University (in that case), the Division Bench has rightly

dismissed the same. Similarly, he placed reliance on the

judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Harsha

-Vs.- State of Maharashtra and Another [2009 (5)

Mah LJ 57], wherein a reference was made by the Court

to the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of

Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) to state that, the concept

- 32 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

of rounding off is a well settled position of law and it would

be inequitable and unjust to deprive a candidate to

compete in entrance examination merely on the ground

that he/she is not eligible having scored a fraction of mark

less than 45% marks when it can be considered for

rounding off. He has also relied upon another judgment of

the Bombay High Court in the case of Anup Prakash

Vyas -Vs.- University of Pune and Another [(2013) 2

Mah LJ 630], wherein the Division Bench has granted the

benefit of rounding off.

9. Smt. Sumana Baliga makes similar submissions to

lay stress on the fact that, the issue in hand is covered by

the judgments/orders as referred to by Sri. Reddy in his

submissions. She submits that, the respondents cannot

be denied the benefit of the judgments which clearly

stipulates the rounding off the percentage to 50%. She

stated that, it is not because of the COVID situation that

the benefit thereof has been given to the candidates in

those cases. It is a case, as arithmetically the

respondent-students have secured the percentage of

- 33 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

marks as stated above, the figure has to be rounded off to

the next integer of 50%. She has also taken us through

all the judgments as referred to by Sri. Reddy.

10. Similarly, Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel

appearing for respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025,

604/2025, 628/2025 and 654/2025 made a submission

that the case of the respondent-students before the

learned Single Judge was that, the Regulations of 2023

have no applicability to the examination in question, as

their examination is governed by the Regulations of 2000

and which aspect has not been considered by the learned

Single Judge. He stated that, the Regulations of 2023 on

which much reliance has been placed by the counsel for

the appellants, have no applicability insofar as the

valuation of the answer sheet pursuant to the examination

held in terms of notification issued in January 2023, as the

syllabus and valuation of answer papers being part of the

examination, have to be under one common regulation.

He stated that, it was the syllabus of 2000 which governed

the examination and hence, valuation need to be under

- 34 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

the Regulations of 2000 and not 2023. He has also relied

upon the judgments as relied upon by Sri. Reddy in

support of his contention that, the issue having been

settled by the judgments referred to by the learned Single

Judge and it is a case where on the strength of an

interpretation to ordinance issued on 12.11.2020 by the

University that this Court has settled the position of law

with regard to rounding off, of the percentage, the benefit

of the judgments having been rightly given by the learned

Single Judge, no interference is called for.

Analysis:

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record, the only issue which arises for

consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge is

justified in directing rounding off, of the percentage, in the

facts, in favour of the respondent-students to the next

integer of 50%?

12. Before we answer the issue which arises for

consideration, it is necessary to reproduce the ordinance

- 35 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

which was issued on 12.11.2020 by the University which

was the subject matter of the judgments as relied upon by

the learned Single Judge:

"Hon'ble Vice Chancellor explained about the Hon'ble High Court direction regarding Writ petition No.11348 of 2020 (EDN-RES) and asked syndicate members to give opinion.

Registrar (Eva) sought the opinion of syndicate whether to implement the Hon'ble High court order or to go for an appeal.

Hon'ble members opined that it is better to implement the court order to benefit the student future.

Hon'ble Vice Chancellor informed the members that there are three options

(1) Considering the Covid-19 situation will implement this court order to benefit the student.

(2) After implementing this court order, we will go for an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court.

(3) We will round off the marks at evaluator level, rounding off marks after taking average of 4+1 valuation and rounding off the marks after taking total average of the marks. By doing this, we will not give any options for students to go to the court.

- 36 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

And informed the members to opine on this. Members opined to implement the third option prospectively to benefit the students.

Dr. Jayakrishna H.J enquired about the recent High Court order filed by a student regarding the issue of Provisional Degree Certificate. Registrar (Eva) briefed about the same and informed the members that as per the statutes of RGUHS, Degree Certificate will be issued only after the Convocation Ceremony of that particular academic year and Provisional Degree Certificate is widely accepted all over the world and as per the court order for this particular student will include a line saying that PDC is as good as final degree certificate.

Prof. Rajesh Shenoy requested to bring in changes in conduct of convocation ceremony to benefit the students

Dr. Ravishankar Shetty and Dr. GR Chandrashekar opined that the statistics shows that university has not won many cases in the honble high court, may be university panel of advocates are not representing properly. Dr. Ravishankar Shetty requested to conduct a meeting with panel of advocates and suggested to terminate the advocates from the panel who have served for more than 4 years and requested to present the list of panel of advocates who have been working from past 5 years, number of cases allotted to each lawyer and the details of the fees paid to them

- 37 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

Hon'ble members congratulated Hon'ble Vice Chancellor on winning a case with respect to affiliation with Raja Rajarajeshwari Medical College, Prof. Rajesh Shenoy and Dr Kiran Kumar N requested Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to write to govt seeking clarification on losing Karnataka state quota seats from past 2 or 3 years, Hon'ble Vice Chancellor informed the members that a letter has been written to state govt.

Dr. Kiran Kumar N congratulated and appreciated the efforts putforth by Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka in winning this case and requested for proper measures to be taken in regards to the surrendering of the seats which are lost from past 3 years of state Government quota.

Hon'ble Vice Chancellor informed the members that based on the court order a letter will be written to the college and state government for the implementation of the court decision.

The syndicate has thereafter dissolved as under:

In view of the prevailing Covid-19 situation, It was recommended to implement the Hon'ble High Court direction regarding Writ petition No. 11348 of 2020 (EDN-RES) as a one time measure,"

- 38 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

13. Similarly, the Regulations of 2023 issued by NMC

on 29.12.2023 are also reproduced, more specifically

Regulation 8.4, which refers to valuation:

"8.4 Valuation:

а. All the teachers of the other colleges of the concemed University or other Universities, who are eligible to be post-graduate examiners, can perform the valuation of the answerscripts.

b. All the answer scripts shall be subjected for two valuations by the concerned University. The average of the total marks awarded by 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.

- 39 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

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

Passing Minimum for Theory 200/400(40% minimum in each paper)

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 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 given 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.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF P.G. DIPLOMA COURSES

S.No Description P.G. Diploma Courses

1 THEORY

Paper

- 40 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

Total marks for Theory 300 Paper Passing Minimum for 150/300(40% Theory minimum in each paper)

14. It may be stated at the outset that, what was

considered by this Court in the judgments referred to by

the learned Single Judge is the notification issued on

12.11.2020 by the University. In other words, it was the

decision of the syndicate vide resolution/notification dated

12.11.2020, which contemplated implementation of the

order of this Court in Dr. Guruprasad (supra) as a one

time measure. It is also seen that, the decision of the

University was to render the benefit of the order in the

case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) because of COVID-19

situation. In any case it is the submission of Sri. Reddy

and other counsel for the respondents that, in the case of

Dr. Guruprasad (supra), the benefit of rounding off was

not because of COVID reasons, but as arithmetically the

petitioner therein had secured 49.75%, the directions

were given to round off to the next whole i.e., 50%.

- 41 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

In support of his submission, Sri. Reddy has relied upon

paragraph No.3(b) of the order of the learned Single Judge

in Dr. Guruprasad (supra). What is important is, the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra), wherein the Division Bench

has, in paragraph No.8, held as under:

"8. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment also. It was a case of awarding of grace marks to a student undergoing Post Graduate course. No such contingency as involved in the present case was involved in the case decided by Division Bench. This Court is not deciding the present case under normal circumstances. This Court is dealing with a situation where almost the entire country is under lockdown and even the students who are doing under Post Graduate Courses are the frontline workers and are practically doing COVID duties round the clock. Large number of Doctors have lost their lives and inspite of the aforesaid we have not come across a single case where a Doctor has denied treatment to a patient suffering from COVID, atleast to this Bench no such case has been brought to the notice. Probably, the University syndicate keeping in view various factors, the plight of Doctors, their sacrifice to save mankind, has taken a policy decision to round off the percentage by its

- 42 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

decision dated 12.11.2020, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court when once the syndicate of the University under the provisions of The Rajiv Gandhi University Act, 2006 has taken a decision to round off the marks, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed an order granting the benefit to respondents No.1 and 2, not only this the University cannot implement a judgment of the syndicate in a selective manner. All examinations were held during COVID time in respect of Post Graduate Courses and granting benefit by the University to one individual and denying the same to another individual is certainly violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, admission is declined.

No order as to costs."

So, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is

very clear that, the benefit of rounding off was given

because of the COVID reasons and the same being a

justifiable reason, the individuals/candidates were

certainly entitled to the benefit thereof.

15. Sri. Reddy had also heavily relied upon the

judgment in the case of Dr. Haroon Adoni (supra), more

- 43 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

specifically paragraph No.6 thereof to contend that, when

the law continues to be in the statute books, till repealed

by the competent body, the benefit of ordinance and relief

thereof to the deserving candidates cannot be denied by

placing interpretation of the kind, the University wants this

Court to place on the clause in question. We are not

impressed by this submission of Sri. Reddy. What is

important is, the valuation of the answer sheet in the case

in hand is under the Regulations of 2023 issued by the

NMC. So, the issue need to be decided keeping in view

the said Regulations of 2023 and not the ordinance/

resolution of the University which was the basis of all the

decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order. Though the submission of Sri. Reddy and

Smt. Baliga and Sri. Malipatil is that, Regulations of 2023

are pari materia to the ordinance issued by the University

which was the subject matter in the judgments referred to

by the learned Single Judge and as such, the

interpretation given by the Division Bench would hold good

in these cases as well, we are unable to agree with the

- 44 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

said submission. We have already reproduced the

resolution passed by the University in the year 2020 and

the Regulations of 2023. The Regulations of 2023 more

specifically Regulation 8.4 which we have reproduced

above is very clear that, the benefit of rounding off is

contemplated only at the time of valuation by the two

valuators when the average of the total marks are

awarded by them which need to be rounded off to the

nearest integer and the rounding off shall be considered

for computation of the result. In other words, the

computation of the result must be on the basis of rounding

off, of the marks based on the valuation made by two

valuators and not thereafter. There is no stipulation in the

regulation, which contemplates rounding off of the

percentage of marks. In the present case, the

respondent-students have, on the basis of the valuation

made by the valuators, on the average of the total marks

awarded by them, secured 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75%.

This percentage is the reflection of marks pursuant to the

valuation by the two valuators.

- 45 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

16. Sri. Chinnappa is justified in his submission that

the above percentage is the reflection of the marks which

they have secured. In fact we find that, stipulation 5

states that, there is no grace marks permitted in PG

examination either for theory or practical. The relief which

has been sought by the respondent and granted by the

learned Single Judge is to round off the percentage to

50%, which in effect mean that the same shall have the

effect of granting grace marks for the candidates to reach

50%, which is impermissible. In fact, the Sl.No.1 under

Regulation 8.4 clearly stipulates the minimum passing

marks for theory is 200 out of 400. Concedingly, none of

the respondent-students have secured 200/400 as their

percentage was 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75%. So it must

follow that, the Regulations issued by the NMC govern the

valuation in the manner prescribed and nothing more can

be read into the same otherwise it would amount to

re-writing the Regulations by the Court, which is clearly

impermissible in law. Sri. Chinnappa is also justified in

- 46 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Taniya Malik (supra) wherein the Supreme

Court has, in paragraphs No.22 to 24, held as under:

"22. With regard to question as to rounding off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate.

23. This Court, in Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012) 8 SCC 568 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 650 : 4 SCEC 664], held as impermissible the rounding-off of eligibility criteria in relation to qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). Relying upon the decision rendered in Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] , this Court observed: (G. Hemlatha case [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012) 8 SCC 568 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 650 : 4 SCEC 664] , SCC pp. 570-71, paras 8-12)

"8. In Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree howdhary [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2

- 47 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

SCC (L&S) 353] this Court in somewhat similar fact situation considered whether the eligibility criteria could be relaxed by the method of rounding-off. The Orissa Public Service Commission published an advertisement inviting applications from suitable candidates for the Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009 for direct recruitment to fill up 77 posts of Civil Judges (JD). Pursuant to the advertisement, the first respondent therein applied for the said post. She took the preliminary written examination. She was successful in the said examination. She, then, took the main written examination. The list of successful candidates, who were eligible for interview, was published in which the first respondent's name was not there. She received the marksheet. She realised that she had secured 337 marks out of 750 i.e. 44.93% of marks in the aggregate and more than 33% of marks in each subject.

9. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short "the Orissa Rules"), the candidates who have secured not less than 45% of the marks in the aggregate and not less than a minimum of 33% of marks in each paper in the written examination should be called for viva voce test. Since the first respondent therein had secured 44.93% marks in aggregate she was not called for interview/viva voce. The first respondent approached the Orissa High Court. The High Court allowed [Rupashree Chowdhury v. State of Orissa, 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 361 : (2010) 109 CLT 466] the writ petition. The appeal from the said order was carried to this Court.

10. After considering the Orissa Rules, this Court in Rupashree Chowdhary case [Orissa Public Service

- 48 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] held that Rule 24 thereof made it clear that: (SCC p. 111, para 10)

'10. ... in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination.'

This Court observed that when emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there can be no relaxation or rounding-off. It was observed that no power was provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding- off or giving grace marks. It was clarified that: (SCC p. 112, para 10) '10. ... The [Orissa] Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory Rules for giving the benefit of rounding-off or relaxation.'

11. In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi v. DG, Medical Education and Training [Vani Pati Tripathi v. DG, Medical Education and Training, 2002 SCC OnLine All 1005 : AIR 2003 All 164] and the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab [Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 649 : PLR (1997) 117 P&H 1] were

- 49 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

cited before us because they take the same view. However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public Service Commission [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] , it is not necessary for us to discuss the said decisions.

12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemalatha, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5108] of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge [G. Hemalatha v. Registrar, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5189 : (2011) 4 Kant LJ 286] was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible."

(emphasis supplied)

24. Thus the principle of rounding off method could not be applied in view of the requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instant case."

17. Insofar as the submission of Sri. Malipatil on the

applicability of old Regulations of 2000 for the examination

- 50 -

WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals

is concerned, the same is not appealing for more than one

reason. Firstly, such a plea as stated by Sri. Malipatil

though pleaded, but was not advanced. Rather, the

respondents for whom he appears got the benefit of the

earlier judgment by the learned Single Judge in

Dr. K. Sree Laxmi -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University of

Health Sciences and Another [WP No.3438/2025

and connected petitions, decided on 24.02.2025]. He