Karnataka High Court
Dr Kaushik D S vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.22991 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS. 4152/2025, 6896/2025,
10010/2025, 10022/2025, 10229/2025, 10240/2025,
10244/2025, 10270/2025, 10390/2025, 12793/2025,
19224/2025, 20228/2025, 20248/2025, 21101/2025,
21401/2025, 22957/2025, 23004/2025, 23086/2025,
23088/2025, 23165/2025
IN WP 22991/2025
BETWEEN
DR G INDU VARSHINI
D/O ANJANEYA PRASAD,
AGE 28 YEARS,
UNI REG NO. 21MG407,
NO. 10-3-68/3 VENKATA TULSI TOWERS,
FLAT NO. 103, KHAMMAM (URBAN)
TELANGANA 507001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 041.
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET 14, SECTOR 8,
-2-
DWARAKA PHASE I, NEW DELHI 11007
BY ITS SECRETARY.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. MAMATHA G KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. N. KHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF
M.D. GENERAL MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE
BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4
EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR ASHAKIRAN
D/O SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
C/O VISHAL, H. NO-18, 11 TH CROSS,
PARVATHIPURA, RAJANKUNTE,
BENGALURU 560064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.HIREMATH AKKAMAHADEVI., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
(RGUHS), 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560041.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET NO 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA,
NEW DEHI 110077
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. N. KHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO
CONDUCT REVALUATION BY A THIRD EVALUTOR OF THE
PETITIONERS ANSWERSCRIPTS IN THEORY PAPERS 1 AND 2
(PATHOLOGY 1 AND 2) PRODUCED AS ANNX-B1 AND B2 AND
ETC.
BETWEEN
1 . DR. MEENU ROY
D/O SOHIT KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT AGARPUR,
LALGANJ, VAISHALI,
BIHAR - 844 121
2 . DR. ANURADHA S.
D/O SIDDAPPA B.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT ROOM NO 325,
SARAYU HOSTEL,
SSIMS AND RC, JNANA SANGAMA
NH-4, DAVANGERE - 577 005
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCE (RGUHS), 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET NO. 14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA, NEW DEHI - 110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B. S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT THE
REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONERS
BY EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT
APPLICABLE TO SITUATION WHEREVER THE DIFFERENCE OF
MARKS AWARDED BY THE VALUATORS IS MORE THAN EQUAL TO
15 PERCENT AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE TOTAL MARKS
PRESCRIBED TO THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT IN VIEW OF THE
SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AT THE HANDS OF THIS HONBLE
COURT IN W.P. NO. 31335/2019 DATED 10/08/2020 SINCE
AFFIRMED IN W A NO. 771/2021 DATED 12/08/2021 21
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ANNEXURE-J.
BETWEEN
DR. ARUSHI SONI,
D/O DR. DILIP SONI,
AGED 30 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO. 21ME308,
R/O BAGDIYA GOVT. HOSPITAL,
SAJANGARH, CHARU,
RAJASTHAN - 331 507.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D.
PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION
OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR. PRADYOTHA SUMAN,
D/O K. C. MALLA NAIK,
AGED 27 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO. 21ME269,
R/O NO.449, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
BEML LAYOUT, R. R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D.
PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION
OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR. ROHAN BHAT
S/O MR. MULKI VIVEKANANDA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO 21MY204,
R/O FLAT 504, VAISHNAVI APARTMENTS,
ASRP ROAD, DONGERKERY,
MANGALORE - 575 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D.
PATHOLOGY OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF
JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR. NABHAY GANGADHRASWAMY
S/O DR. GANGADHRASWAMY,
AGED 33 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO. 21YT242,
R/O NO.135/136, 1ST A MAIN,
WOC ROAD, 2ND STAGE
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL,
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.S.
ORTHOPAEDICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL
EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE
BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4
EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR. PYATA DINESH REDDY
S/O MR. PAYATA MAHIPAL REDDY
AGED 30 YEARS
UNI REG. NO 20ME065
R/O VILLA 15, POULOMI RISTOS
LANE 4 KOKAPET,
K. V. RANGAREDDY,
TELANAGANA - 500 075
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD
POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE
NEW DELHI - 110 077
BY ITS SECRETARY
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D.
PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION
OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR. DEBALINA SARKAR,
D/O MR. PRABAL KUMAR SARKAR,
AGED 31 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO. 21MG346,
R/O NO.52B, HINDUSTHAN PARK,
SARAT BOASE ROAD, KOLKATA,
WEST BENGAL - 700 029.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. GENERAL
MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF
JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR BHARATH N.,
S/O MR. L. NARAYAN,
AGED 28 YEARS, UNI. REG.NO. 21MG216,
R/O NO.134 AND 136, LAKSHMIPATHY GARDEN,
HBR 1ST BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, SUBASH LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY
ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. GENERAL
MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF
JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT FIFTY VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.
BETWEEN
DR. SMITA KABBUR
D/O SHANKAR KABBUR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O NO. 822/A, 1ST MAIN,
3RD STAGE, CONTOUR ROAD,
GOKULAM, MYSORE - 570 002
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
(RGUHS), 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 041.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET NO 14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA, NEW DEHI - 110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO
CONDUCT REVALUATION OF THE PETITIONERS ANSWER -
SCRIPTS IN THEORY PAPERS 1, 2 AND 4 (PATHOLOGY 1, 2 AND
4) BY A THIRD EVALUATOR THE COPY WHICH IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AS ANNX-B1, B2, B3 AND B4 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR. VYSHAK S.,
S/O DR. S. SURESH.,
AGED 32 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO. 20MG074,
R/O HALKURKE ROAD, 6TH CROSS,
2ND LANE, GOVINDPURA,
TIPTUR, TUMAKURU - 572 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL
VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED
SUBJECTS OF M. D. GENERAL MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE
MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF MAY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE
BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15PERCENTAGE MARKS BETWEEN THE
4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER, TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UNIVERSITY.
BETWEEN
DR. AVNEESH LEEKHA,
S/O NARESH KUMAR LEEKHA,
AGE 30 YEARS
UNI REG NO. 21YE191
NO. 29, LIVSTONIA III,
PALM GROVES CO-OP HSG SOCIETY,
B T KAWADE ROAD, PUNE,
MAHARASHTRA - 411 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET 14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA PHASE I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FALLED SUBJECTS OF
M.S. E.N.T. OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO
CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF
15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER, TO BE
CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR. NEUSHREE PANI,
D/O NRUSINGHA PANI,
AGE 30 YEARS,
UNI REG NO. 21ME302.
R/O FLAT NO. 301, JAGANNATH BHAVAN,
SURYA NAGAR BHUBANESHWAR,
KHORDA DISTRICT, ODISHA - 751 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET 14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA PHASE I NEW DELHI - 110 077.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT
THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO
ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS
OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF 'M.D. PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST
GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025
UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH
VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENTAGE
MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR. KAUSHIK D. S.
S/O DEMAPPA,
AGED 29 YEARS
119, 1ST CROSS, NIVEDITHA NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 022
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 0041.
REP. BY REGISTRAR
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL,
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA
NEW DELHI - 110 077
.......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING
THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO
ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS
OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MD OPHTHALMOLOGY OF THE POST
GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025
UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH
VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15PERCENTAGE
MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR KIRTHI KIRAN
S/O K SAMPATH
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT # 36, MADHU NIVAS,
33RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
OPP. SANDHYA THEATER, MADIVALA,
BTM-LAYOUT 1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 068
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 041.
REP. BY REGISTRAR
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL,
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA NEW DELHI - 110 077
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING
THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO
ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS
OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MS OTO- RHINO-LARYNGOL OF THE
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025
UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH
VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT
MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR. KAVURI SRI HARSHA
S/O. KAVURI KRISHNA RAO
AGED 30 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF H.NO.1-13-
404/B/1/101
MAYER STREET, NIZAMABAD
NEAR RAGHAVA HIGH SCHOOL
ANDHRA PRADESH - 503 001.
AT PRESENT R/A PG HOSTEL,
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE,
MANGALORE - 575 018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 041.
REP. BY REGISTRAR
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL,
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA
NEW DELHI - 110 077
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING
THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO
ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS
OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MD PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST
GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025
UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH
VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT
MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR. ATHUL SURESH
S/O CK SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT PG HOSTEL, AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
MANGALORE - 575 004
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 041
REP. BY REGISTRAR
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL,
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA NEW DELHI - 110 077
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M
D PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE
BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4
EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UNIVERSITY.
BETWEEN
DR. MANGUKIYA AXAY KANTILAL
S/O MANGUKIYA KANTILALA CHHAGANLAL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
AT PRESENT R/A ROOM NO. D1
SKP RESIDENCY, NO. 25,
GJM IT GARDENS, MALLURAHALLI
2ND MAIN ROAD, NALLURHALLI,
KR PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 066.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 041.
REP. BY REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
POCKET NO. 14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF
MS OTO- RHINO-LARYNGOL OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE
BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4
EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR.K. SREE LAXMI
D/O K. AMARA LINGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/A KVG MEDICAL PG GIRLS HOSTEL,
COURT ROAD, KURANJIBHAG,
SULIYA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 327
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 041.
REP. BY REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
POCKET NO. 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA
NEW DELHI - 110 077,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF
MD PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKER BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE
BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4
EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
BETWEEN
DR SAKSHI BHUWANIA
D/O MR. MANOJ KUMAR BHUWANIA,
AGE 30 YEARS,
R/O BELPAHAR, AZAD CHOWK,
JHARSUGUDA, ODISHA - 768 217
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE- I,
NEW DELHI - 110 077
BY ITS SECRETARY.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT
THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO
ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS
OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. DERMATOLOGY OF THE POST
GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF MAY 2025 UNDERTAKE
BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON
THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN
THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH
THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
UNIVERSITY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 29.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV COMMON ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
This is the perennial problem of failed students, seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to
conduct two additional valuations of the theory answer
scripts of the failed subjects.
2. The petitioners are Post Graduate medical students
who took up the examinations during January 2025. It is
their contention that the Ordinance of 2019 mandates
evaluation of the answer scripts by four evaluators and if the
deviation of marks between the evaluators is more than
15%, the answer scripts should be evaluated by a fifth
evaluator. However, the National Medical Commission
notified the 'Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations,
2023' on 29.12.2023, bringing the provisions of the new
Regulations into force from the date of the publication of the
notification in the Official Gazette.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vivek Subba Reddy,
appearing for some of the petitioners contended that
although the repeal and savings clause expressly repealed
the 'Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000',
nevertheless, there was some confusion regarding the
applicability of the new Regulations to those students who
were admitted to the course much earlier and therefore, a
clarification was issued by the respondent-National Medical
Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the NMC' for short)
by way of a public notice dated 10.04.2024 at Annexure 'E'
in W.P.No.22991/2025, along with the Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs). It is submitted that although the position
regarding the old batch students is not clear in the new
Regulations, nevertheless, while answering Question No.6
i.e., 'How will dissertations be evaluated, and what is the
process for viva voce examination?', along with the answer
to the said question, it was also stated that the new
Regulations will be applicable for all those students
appearing in the forthcoming post-graduate examination.
However, it is also a fact that the NMC issued a public notice
on 07.08.2024 requesting all the Universities to complete the
academic curriculum including conducting of final
examination by 31.12.2024 of PG Board Specialty Degree
students who had taken admission in the Academic Year
2021. Representations were however received by the NMC
from few Universities to postpone the deadline and
accordingly, the Universities were asked to complete the
examinations by 31st of January 2025.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the intention
behind the completion of the examinations of the students
who were admitted in the academic year 2021 was to ensure
that the old Regulations would be followed in their case.
This is further fortified by the notification dated 16.12.2024
at Annexure 'F' issued by the respondent-Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as
'RGUHS' for short) clearly stating that since the students
were admitted during 2021-22, the University had decided
that the examination pattern will remain as it is and it will
not be as per the new Regulations, 2023.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when it is
expressly notified by the RGUHS that the examination
pattern will remain as it is, which would mean that the
pattern shall be in terms of the old Regulations, it would
imply that the evaluations too should be done in terms of the
old Regulations. The RGUHS should not be permitted to pick
and choose between the two Regulations. It is submitted
that though the new Regulations, 2023, prescribed a
different pattern of examination, the same is given a go-by,
but evaluation is sought to be done in terms of the new
Regulations. The new Regulations prescribe in Regulation
8.4(b) that all the answer scripts shall be subjected for two
evaluations by the concerned University. The average of the
total marks awarded by the two evaluators for the paper,
shall be considered for computation of the results. All the
answer scripts, where the difference between two
evaluations is between 15% and more of the total marks
prescribed for the paper, shall be subjected to third
valuation. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the RGUHS
has erred in restricting the evaluation at the hands of two
examiners, whence the examination pattern of the old
Regulations are followed. It is pointed out that at Regulation
8.3 where methodology is provided in the new Regulations,
2023, it is prescribed that the theory examination may
consist of descriptive answer of a question type, Multiple
Choice Question or mix of both types. Since there is a
change in the methodology, the NMC prescribes evaluation
at the hands of two examiners. However, since the
methodology under the old Regulations were different, the
NMC had prescribed four evaluations. The RGUHS has erred
in retaining the old methodology or pattern and conducting
evaluation at the hands of two examiners.
6. Reliance is placed on a decision of a co-ordinate
Bench at Kalaburagi Bench in the case of Almas Kausar
and Others Vs. RGUHS and Another in
W.P.No.201553/2024 dated 30.07.2024, where an
alternative prayer was made by the petitioners of the
Undergraduate MBBS course (RS3) that direction may be
issued to the RGUHS to extend the same scheme of
valuation applicable to RS4 scheme and also uniform
application of valuation scheme and to undertake evaluation
at the hands of two examiners, as was prescribed for RS4
scheme. However, the co-ordinate Bench held that the
distinction made between the two schemes was in
furtherance of a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.57/2023. Attention of this Court is also drawn to
the decision of the Division Bench which considered an intra-
Court appeal of the same case in W.P.No.201553/2024
(Almas Kausar), which upheld the decision of the learned
Single Judge, while noticing the fact that the amendment
notification dated 04.11.2019 made a distinction between
RS3 and RS4 batches and accordingly provided for different
schemes of evaluation. However, it is submitted that in the
new Regulations, 2023, no such distinction is made between
the 2021-22 and the subsequent batches. The new
Regulations were required to be followed in all the batches,
but the RGUHS has followed different methodology of
evaluation insofar as the 2021-22 batch is concerned, by
evaluation at the hands of two examiners only, contrary to
the new Regulations.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol,
appearing for the respondent-RGUHS submitted that the
University had very clearly informed all the stakeholders,
through its notification dated 16.12.2024 that as the
students were admitted during 2021-22, the University
decided that the examination pattern will remain in terms of
the old Regulations. This was not questioned by the
petitioners. It is submitted that as the petitioners did not
question the said notification dated 16.12.2024, they should
not be permitted to agitate the issue after writing the
examination and after receiving the results. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that 2859 PG students appeared for the
examinations during January 2025, out of which 2579
students passed in the examination, making the result of
90.21%. Only 277 students failed. In the May 2025
supplementary examinations, 271 students took up the
examination and 221 were declared successful. 50 students
have failed. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit,
that the statistics and the results would show that the
benefit of the new Regulations in providing for evaluation at
the hands of two examiners have been more beneficial to the
students. Moreover, whatever methodology apply, whether
it is evaluation at the hands of two examiners or four
examiners, some students may fail. Therefore, the result of
failure cannot be attributed to the number of examiners.
Even otherwise, the NMC and its experts have found from
past experience that evaluation at the hands of two
examiners are more beneficial to the students and therefore,
the new Regulations prescribe evaluation of the answer
scripts at the hands of two examiners.
8. Learned Counsel Sri N.Khetty, appearing for the
respondent-NMC submitted that the RGUHS kept the NMC
informed of its decision to follow the old scheme of question
paper insofar as the students of 2021-22 batch are
concerned and that they will follow the new pattern of
evaluation at the hands of two examiners. It is submitted
that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the RGUHS is
right in his submission that the NMC and its experts have
found that evaluation at the hands of two examiners are
more beneficial to the students and therefore, the NMC has
now prescribed, in its new Regulations, 2023, evaluation at
the hands of two examiners. It is submitted that the RGUHS
has given the benefit of best of both to the students of 2021-
22, inasmuch as following the old pattern of question paper
and new pattern of evaluation.
9. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Vivek Subba
Reddy, Sri Pradeep Patil and Sri Nataraj G., learned counsels
appearing for the petitioners, Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-RGUHS and Sri
N.Khetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent-NMC
and perused the petition papers.
10. It would be apposite to extract the observations of
the Division Bench in the case of Almas Kausar and
Others Vs. RGUHS and Another in W.A.No.200176/2024,
which is as follows:
"11. We are constrained to observe that the methodology
of evaluation of the theory answer scripts has fallen
for consideration at the hands of this Court, all at the
instance of the students of RS-3 batch. Initially, in the
case of Sri Neelesh Mehta and Ors. Vs. RGUHS and
another, in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected
matters dated 10.08.2020 and Basant K.B. Vs. RGUHS
and another, in W.P. No.231/2021 and connected
matters dated 11.02.2021, the students were
successful and this Court held that evaluation at the
hands of two evaluators was contrary to Regulation
13(2) of the MCI-GME Regulations, 1997. Directions
were issued to the RGUHS to conduct evaluation at the
hands of two more evaluators and thereafter provide
for deviation evaluation in case of erratic evaluation
where the difference of marks was more than 15% of
the total marks prescribed for the paper. Such
directions were issued only in respect of failed papers.
What we find thereafter is constant complaints at the
hands of the failed students. If evaluation is done at
the hands of two evaluators, which apparently gives
better results for the students, even then petitions are
filed by the failed students contending that such
evaluation will be contrary to Regulation 13(2). If
evaluation is done at the hands of four evaluators, the
failed students would file petitions contending that the
benefit of evaluation at the hands of two evaluators
given to all other students, except the batch of RS-3,
would be arbitrary and therefore they would seek
evaluation at the hands of four evaluators. We should
therefore say that much indulgence has been shown
by this Court, being carried away by misplaced
sympathy, to protect the interest of the students. We
cannot lose sight of the fact that at our directions, the
respondent - RGUHS has been forced to conduct
reevaluation of failed papers, in a different manner,
than what was actually followed in respect of the
passed papers."
11. This Court need not go any further, since it is clear
that the respondent-RGUHS has given the benefit of best of
both to the students admitted in the year 2021-22. The
Division Bench has rightly observed that at the whims and
fancies of the petitioners who are unsuccessful, the
methodology cannot be reversed or varied. Such action
would amount to turning the clock backwards and putting
the cart before the horse which is not permissible. It was
observed by the Division Bench that there is a strong
tendency of the students to some how pass the examination,
sometimes nit-picking on provisions regarding method of
evaluation, sometimes seeking right of re-evaluation and/or
seeking to tailor the results to suit the petitioners and ensure
that they pass in the examinations, which would be a matter
of great concern, as petitioners are pursuing course in
medicine and would be dealing with the lives of people.
12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is
of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the
petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Pending I.As., stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(R. DEVDAS)
JUDGE
JT/-
CT:JL
