2. The appellant is a Health Science University established on
3. The writ petitioners are students pursuing the first-year
University']. The writ petitioners had filed their respective writ
4. A tabular statement indicating the reliefs sought by the writ
- 12 -
AND 3 OTHERS
to direct the respondent university to
henceforth provide the key answers, key
words/points, key phrases/terms, to the
examiners for evaluating all the question
papers set by it for all the MBBS
Examinations conducted by the Respondent
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
d) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature
of certiorari to dated 26.08.2024 produced as
quash the impugned Notification
videNO.RGUHSB/RRAC/AUTH(MEET) / 8 /
2024 ANNEXURE- H.
e) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent no 1 to
Declare the petitioners to be entitled for one
additional attempt to clear failed subjects of
MBBS 1st phase examinations which is
scheduled on 02-12-2024 holding petitioners
to be entitled for continuation of the course by
considering the representations at
ANNEXURE K1 to K3.
f) Pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit & proper
considering the facts & Circumstances of this
case, in the interest of justice and equity.
WP 32027/2024 a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to provide
the photocopies of the answer scripts along
with valuation slips of the petitioners.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to the respondent No 1 university
send the petitioners answer scripts to the one
more valuator for the revaluation and
announce the results of the best marks as
awarded by all the examiners before the
commencement of examinations.
c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to the respondent No 1 university
to direct the respondent university to
henceforth provide the key answers, key
words/points, key phrases/terms, to the
examiners for evaluating all the question
papers set by it for all the MBBS
Examinations conducted by the Respondent
- 13 -
AND 3 OTHERS
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
d) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature
of certiorari to quash the impugned
Notification dated 26.08.2024 videNO.
RGUHSB/RRAC/AUTH(MEET) / 8 / 2024
produced as ANNEXURE- H.
e) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus to the respondent no 1 to Declare
the petitioners to be entitled for one additional
attempt to clear failed subjects of MBBS 1st
phase examinations which is scheduled on
02-12-2024 holding petitioners to be entitled
for continuation of the course by considering
the representations at ANNEXURE K1 to K2.
f) Pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit & proper
considering the facts & Circumstances of this
case, in the interest of justice and equity.
WP 31762/2024 a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to provide
the photocopies of the answer scripts along
with valuation slips of the petitioners.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university send the petitioners answer
scripts to the one more valuator for the
revaluation and announce the results of the
best marks as awarded by all the examiners
before the commencement of examinations.
c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university to direct the respondent university
to henceforth provide the key answers, key
words/points, key phrases/terms, to the
examiners for evaluating all the question
papers set by it for all the MBBS
Examinations conducted by the Respondent
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences.
d) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature
of certiorari to quash the impugned
Notification 26.08.2024 dated videNO.
RGUHSB/RRAC/AUTH(MEET) / 8 / 2024
produced as ANNEXURE- H.
- 14 -
AND 3 OTHERS
e) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent no 1 to
Declare the petitioners to be entitled for one
additional attempt to clear failed subjects of
MBBS 1st phase examinations which is
scheduled on 02-12-2024 holding petitioners
to be entitled for continuation of the course
by considering the representations at
ANNEXURE K1 to K2.
f) Pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit & proper
considering the facts & Circumstances of
this case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
WP 11407/2024 a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university send the petitioners answer
scripts to the one more valuator for the
revaluation and announce the results by
considering the best marks as awarded by
the examiners.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university to direct the respondent university
to henceforth provide the key answers, key
words, key phrases/terms, to the examiners
for evaluating all the question papers set by
it for all the MBBS Examinations conducted
by the Respondent Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences.
c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to Permit
the petitioner students to attend on going
classes of the 2nd year MBBS which are
already commenced.
d) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to provide
answer scripts along with valuation slips of
the petitioners.
e) Pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit & proper
considering the facts & Circumstances of
this case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
- 15 -
AND 3 OTHERS
WP 9023/2024, a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
WP 16065/2024, of mandamus to the respondent No 1
WP 16121/2024 university send the petitioners answer
scripts to the one more valuator for the
revaluation and announce the results by
considering the best marks as awarded by
the examiners.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university to direct the respondent university
to henceforth provide the key answers, key
words, key phrases/terms, to the examiners
for evaluating all the question papers set by
it for all the MBBS Examinations conducted
by the Respondent Rajiv Gandhi University
Of Health Sciences.
c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to provide
an opportunity to appear and write in the
upcoming examination scheduled in the
month Oct-Nov 2024.
d) Pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit & proper
considering the facts & Circumstances of
this case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
WP 10806/2024 a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university send the petitioners answer
scripts to the one more valuator for the
revaluation and announce the results by
considering the best marks as awarded by
the examiners.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature
university to direct the respondent university
to henceforth provide the key answers, key
words, key phrases/terms, to the examiners
for evaluating all the question papers set by
it for all the MBBS Examinations conducted
by the Respondent Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences.
c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to provide a
- 16 -
AND 3 OTHERS
5 Grace Marks in one subject to the
petitioners.
d) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature
of Mandamus to the respondent to Permit
the petitioner students to attend on going
classes of the 2nd year MBBS which are
already commenced.
e) Pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it fit & proper
considering the facts & Circumstances of
this case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
5. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petitions in
part with the following directions:
"i) The writ petitions are allowed in part;
ii) The Syndicate and Academic Council of the
respondent-University is directed to reconsider the matter
afresh, specifically with regard to providing essential key
answers or model answers for descriptive questions, in
order to prevent anomalies or ambiguities during the
initial evaluations and to ensure fairness and
transparency in the examination process.
iii) The respondent-University is directed to forward the
answer scripts of the petitioners, in all these writ petitions,
to an additional Evaluator for fresh assessment, in light of
the significant discrepancy between the marks awarded
by the Evaluators Nos. 1 and 2 and to complete the entire
process within two weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and the results shall be
announced forthwith. In the event the petitioners are
found to have passed the examination after evaluation by
the additional Evaluator, such petitioners are entitled to
all consequential benefits arising therefrom, as
applicable.
iv) It is made clear that the direction issued by this court
with regard to, additional evaluation of the answers
- 17 -
AND 3 OTHERS
scripts of the petitioners herein by the respondent-
University, is only confined to the relief sought for in these
writ petitions and cannot be construed as precedent for
any other cases, as such.
v) In view of the above observations, the validity of the
notifications dated 26.08.2024 and 05.09.2022 issued by
the respondent-University shall be examined in the
appropriate proceedings."
6. As is apparent from the above, the directions issued are
essentially two-fold. First, the learned Single Judge had directed
that the matter of providing essential key answers or model
answers for descriptive questions be reconsidered by the
Syndicate and Academic Council of the University. And second,
that the answer scripts of the writ petitioners be sent to an
additional evaluator for fresh assessment.
7. Insofar as the first direction is concerned, the University has
no grievance. The Syndicate and Academic Council have already
considered the issue of providing key answers or model answers in
regard to the subjective examination.
8. It is material to note that the National Medical Commission
[NMC] had, in one of the writ petitions, filed a reply which
supported the contention that the key answers are required to be
provided even for subjective questions. The NMC explained that
- 18 -
AND 3 OTHERS
key answers would contain "key words" and "key phrases/terms,"
that must be found in students' answer scripts. The same would
serve as the basis/guide for the evaluators/examiners when
awawding marks. However, NMC appears to have subsequently
altered its stand. It now states that subjective answers cannot be
evaluated on the basis of key phrases or terms used in the
answers.
9. In our view, it would not be apposite for this Court to examine
as to how answers to questions in a particular subject are required
to be evaluated. The question whether 'key phrases' or 'key terms'
would assist in evaluating the answers to subjective-type questions
is clearly a matter which would need to be examined by the
experts. The University's contention is that answers to medical
science questions are evaluated based on students' understanding
and knowledge. Their knowledge cannot be evaluated on the anvil,
whether they have used key phrases or terms in the language used
to express their answers. This contention is not insubstantial.
However, as stated above, it is not appropriate for this Court to
examine the said issue, which must necessarily be left to the
knowledge and wisdom of the experts.
- 19 -
AND 3 OTHERS
10. We note that in the present case, the learned Single Judge
has merely directed the Syndicate and the Academic Council of the
University to examine this issue. The University cannot be
aggrieved by the same. However, the learned Single Judge has
made observations which may be considered as binding. In this
regard, we clarify that nothing stated in the impugned order is to be
construed as a firm opinion on whether model answer keys
containing key phrases and key terms are required to be provided
to the examiners for the evaluation of answers to subjective
questions. The University is at liberty to take an appropriate
decision uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned
order.
11. In view of the above, the only remaining question to be
examined is whether the learned Single Judge's direction to
forward the answer scripts of the writ petitioners for an additional
evaluation or fresh assessment is sustainable.
12. The manner in which the answer scripts are to be evaluated
is covered by an "Ordinance / Notification Governing Central
Assessment Programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all
- 20 -
AND 3 OTHERS
Under Graduate Health Science Courses of University" [ hereafter
'the Ordinance']
13. The Ordinance was promulgated by the Syndicate of the
University at the meetings held on 02.09.2022 and 05.09.2022 in
exercise of the statutory power conferred under Section 35(1) of
the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994. In terms
of paragraph 1 of the Ordinance, it would come into effect from the
examination conducted on or after 01.09.2022. The Ordinance is
reproduced below:
"1. TITLE & COMMENCEMENT:
This Ordinance / Notification may be called "Ordinance /
Notification Governing Central Assessment Programme
(CAP) for theory paper assessment of all Under Graduate
Health Science Courses of University".
This Ordinance / Notification shall come into force with
effect from the examination conducted on or after
01.09.2022
2.APPLICABILITY:
This ordinance shall apply to evaluation of theory answer
scripts of all Undergraduate Medical, Dental, Pharmacy,
Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, Nursing, Allied Health
sciences, BPT BNYS Courses except for the students
admitted to BAMS & BUMS on and after 2021-2022.
This ordinance is not applicable for viva-
voce/clinical/practical examinations.
3. DEFINITIONS:
- 21 -
AND 3 OTHERS
General Valuation - Means evaluation conducted by the
first eligible examiner of the respective faculties through
the digital valuation system.
Re-evaluation - Means evaluation conducted by the
second eligible examiners of the respective faculties
through the digital valuation system.
4. PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION:
All answer scripts of all undergraduate health sciences
courses of RGUHS be subjected to general evaluation by
the first eligible examiner and re-evaluation by the second
eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the
digital valuation system before the computation of results.
5. PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF RESULTS:
The highest of the total marks awarded by either of the
two evaluators i.e., best total marks awarded by any of
the two evaluators for the paper shall be considered for
computation of the results. If any decimals occurring
during individual evaluator total marks awarded by the
examiner shall be rounded off to the next higher value for
the purpose of computation of results.
The marks awarded and the results so declared shall be
final and under any circumstances further valuation shall
not be entertained and should be made applicable
prospectively."
[emphasis added]
14. The Ordinance is delegated legislation and is the law that
covers the field of how the answer sheets are to be evaluated.
Thus, the answer sheets must be evaluated in accordance with the
statutory prescription. As is clear from the provisions of the
Ordinance, the general valuation is to be conducted by the first
- 22 -
AND 3 OTHERS
eligible examiner, and the revaluation is to be conducted by the
second eligible examiner. The highest of the marks awarded by the
two evaluators is required to be considered as the final
computation of the result. There is no statutory provision for further
revaluation of the answer scripts or for referring the matter to a
third evaluator. Since the statutory scheme of the Ordinance
prescribes a particular method of evaluation, the evaluation of the
answer scripts can be done only in the manner as provided and no
other.
15. It is also material to note that the learned Single Judge has
neither struck down the Ordinance nor read it down. Thus
necessarily, the final result is required to be computed in
accordance with the ordinance.
16. It is now well settled that if the statute, rules or regulations do
not provide for revaluation of answer scripts, such revaluation
would be impermissible. In Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors.1, the Supreme Court set aside the
order of the High Court which had held that examinees were
(1984) 4 SCC 27
- 23 -
AND 3 OTHERS
entitled to seek disclosure, inspection, and re-evaluation of answer-
sheets, and held that in the absence of a specific provision
conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-
evaluated, no such direction can be issued. This principle was
reiterated in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission, Patna & Others2, where the
Supreme Court held that in the absence of any provision for re-
evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in
an examination has any right to insist on the re-evaluation of his
marks.
17. In Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra
Trinadh & Others3, the Supreme Court, after considering the
decisions in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), Ran Vijay Singh
v. State of U.P.4, and Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another v. State
of Rajasthan & Others5, expressly disapproved the practice of
High Courts calling for answer scripts to satisfy themselves as to
whether re-evaluation was warranted and thereafter directing re-
evaluation in the absence of any specific provision in the relevant
(2004) 6 SCC 714
2022 INSC 1172
(2018) 2 SCC 357
(2021) 2 SCC 309
- 24 -
AND 3 OTHERS
rules. The Court held that such a course, while exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was wholly
impermissible.
18. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Supreme Court observed as
under:
"30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court
may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process
of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in
rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been
committed;"
19. It is relevant to note that the Ordinance governing the
evaluation of the answer scripts expressly provides that "the marks
awarded and the results so declared shall be final and under any
circumstances further valuation shall not be entertained.", Thus the
revaluation is impermissible.
20. In the present case, the learned Single Judge had directed
revaluation on the ground that there was a wide variation in the
marks awarded by the first evaluator and the re-evaluator. The
large gap in the marks awarded by the two evaluators clearly
indicates greater subjectivity in evaluating subjective answers.
- 25 -
AND 3 OTHERS
However, we are unable to accept that referring the answer scripts
to a third valuer would, in any manner, mitigate this element of
subjectivity in the evaluation of answer scripts. It is perhaps for this
reason that the Ordinance provides that the highest of the marks
awarded by the evaluators be considered as the result of the
examination. Thus, the candidate is accorded the benefit of the
best of two evaluations.
21. As noted above, referring the answer scripts for further
evaluation by a third evaluator would not mitigate the subjectivity.
Thus, the very reason that persuaded the learned Single Judge to
direct re-evaluation is not addressed. If the third evaluator's
assessment is lower than the marks awarded - that is, the highest
marks of the two evaluators - then the final result as declared
would have to be accepted. But if the third evaluator awards higher
marks - that is higher than the marks awarded by the two
evaluators - the question would arise as to which of the marks is
required to be accepted. There is no provision to declare the
results on the basis of the highest marks awarded by three
evaluators. There is also no provision for averaging the marks
awarded by evaluators for finalising the result. In this view, the
- 26 -
AND 3 OTHERS
direction to refer the answer scripts to the third evaluator is
unsustainable.
22. It is not open to this Court to evolve a method for evaluating
answer scripts and to supplant the method provided under the
Ordinance. Evaluation of the answer scripts is covered by a
statutory prescription, and therefore, it is neither apposite nor
permissible for the Court to issue directions regarding evaluation
which run contrary to the statute.
23. In view of the above, we are unable to sustain the impugned
direction or revaluation of the answer scripts by a third evaluator.
Accordingly, we set aside the said direction.
24. The present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!
