[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Salman Mahmood vs State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 6560 OF 2026
07.04.2026
Between:
Salman Mahmood
..... Petitioner
And
State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health & Welfare Department & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of
Respondent University in insisting that Petitioner should re-
appear for all four theory papers along with practical/clinical
and viva voce examinations in the Post Graduate Medical
Examination conducted in October, 2025 for the course of M.D.
Anesthesiology, on the ground that he failed Paper-I Basic
Sciences and Applied Anatomy, despite having secured the
requisite marks in the remaining papers. Petitioner seeks a
declaration that such insistence is illegal, arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution and consequently seeks
permission to re-appear only in respect of Paper-I.
2. Petitioner's case is that, he is a medical graduate
who completed M.B.B.S from the 4th respondent - Deccan
College of Medical Sciences after securing a rank in EAMCET
examination conducted upon completion of Intermediate
education. Thereafter, Petitioner appeared for National Eligibility
Entrance Test (NEET) conducted by the National Board of
Examinations in 2022, secured a rank, and was admitted into
the Post Graduate course in M.D. Anesthesiology at Deccan
College of Medical Sciences, where he pursued studies for the
academic period 2022 to 2025. Upon completion of the said
course of three years, he appeared for the Post Graduate
Medical Examination conducted by Respondent No.2 -
University of Health Sciences in October, 2025, which
comprised four theory papers, viz. Paper-I Basic Sciences and
Applied Anatomy, Paper-II Systemic and Regional Anesthesia",
Paper-III Systemic and Super Specialty Anesthesia and Paper-IV
Recent Advances and ICU, along with practical and viva voce
components; results were declared in November, 2025, wherein
Petitioner secured 39 marks in Paper-I as against the minimum
pass mark of 40, thereby failing by one mark.
2.1. It is stated, aggrieved by the said action, Petitioner
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36837 of 2025
seeking, inter alia, declaration that detaining him by one mark
is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, and also sought production and inspection of his
answer script. By order dated 04.02.2026, this Court permitted
him to approach the Grievance Committee by paying requisite
fees for verification of the answer scripts. Pursuant to the said
order, he approached the Grievance Committee, and on
inspection, it was found that in respect of Question No.6,
though he answered the question, no marks whatsoever were
awarded and there was no indication of evaluation by the
examiner, not even a marking or notation, and the answer was
awarded 'zero' marks.
2.2. According to petitioner, in a theory examination,
once an answer is written, there must be some semblance of
application of mind by the examiner while evaluating the same,
and the absence of any marking whatsoever in respect of
Question No.6 clearly indicates non-consideration of the
answer. He places reliance upon Clause 8.4 of the Post-
Graduate Medic Education Regulations, 2023 (for short, 'the
Regulations') issued by the National Medical Commission, which
governs valuation and evaluation of answer scripts. The said
Clause provides for double valuation of answer scripts,
computation of average marks, and further stipulates the
criteria for evaluation of M.D. courses, including that there shall
be four theory papers of 100 marks each, total 400 marks, with
a passing minimum of 200/400 and a minimum of 40% in each
paper, and that a candidate shall secure not less than 50%
marks in each head of passing, including theory,
practical/clinical and viva voce.
2.3. Petitioner relies upon Clause (3) of the criteria for
evaluation, which states that if any candidate fails even under
one head, he/she has to re-appear for both theory and
practical/clinical and viva voce examination, and contends that
the said provision does not state that a candidate must re-
appear in all four theory papers in the event of failure in one
paper and the interpretation sought to be placed by
Respondents requiring re-appearance in all four papers is
contrary to the regulation. It is also stated, petitioner had
already passed in three theory papers, therefore, there is no
requirement for him to re-appear in the said papers. He has no
objection whatsoever to re-appear for theory, practical/clinical
and viva voce examination in respect of Paper I Basic Sciences
and Applied Anatomy, in which he failed by one mark.
2.4. Petitioner contends that Respondents are
misinterpreting Clause (3) of the evaluation criteria without
application of mind and are unjustifiably insisting him to re-
write all the four papers, which is not contemplated under the
Regulations. In view of the said insistence, petitioner is stated to
have filed this Writ Petition.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter contending that
as per Chapter 8 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education
Regulations under the heading "Examinations", particularly
Regulation 8.1, the medical college or institution conducts the
formative assessment (examination), whereas the University
conducts the summative assessment (examination), and that
both formative and summative assessments consist of theory,
clinical/practical and viva w components. The University is
required to conduct not more than two examinations in a year
for any subject, with an interval of not less than four months
and not more than eight months between the two examinations.
Reliance is placed on Regulation 8.4, which deals with valuation
and contends that the criteria for evaluation clearly stipulate
that a candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each
head of passing, including theory, practical/clinical and viva
voce, and that in addition, in each theory paper, a candidate
must secure a minimum of 40%.
3.1. It is specifically contended that the Regulation
provides that if any candidate fails even under one head, he/she
shall have to re-appear for all four theory papers along with
practical/clinical and viva voce, and not merely the paper in
which the candidate has failed. In the present case, as borne
out by the statement of marks, Petitioner failed to secure the
required minimum of 40% in Paper-I Basic Sciences and
Applied Anatomy, having obtained only 39 marks, therefore, he
has been rightly declared as failed in accordance with the
Regulations.
3.2. Petitioner, after being declared failed, had earlier
approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36837 of 2025 and
obtained an order permitting inspection of answer scripts, and
on such inspection, having realized that he did not secure the
required marks, particularly in respect of Question No.6, is now
raising a grievance that no marks were awarded. The answer
scripts are evaluated strictly in accordance with the prescribed
procedure, wherein each answer script is subjected to
evaluation by two examiners, and in the event of there being a
difference of 15% or more between the two evaluators, the script
is referred to a third evaluator.
3.3. In the case of petitioner, it is specifically contended
that despite evaluation by two examiners, he did not secure any
marks for the answer to Question No.6, and therefore the
evaluation cannot be faulted. Petitioner cannot call into
question the evaluation of the answer scripts, as it is a settled
proposition that in the field of medical examinations, the scope
of judicial review is extremely limited and the Court ought not to
interfere in the matter of assessment and evaluation of answer
sheets by expert examiners. As per Regulation 8.1, no grace
marks are permitted in Post Graduate examinations either for
theory or for practical, therefore, he cannot claim any benefit on
that ground. It is further stated, the regulatory provisions are
clear and unambiguous, and there is no challenge to the validity
of the said Regulations by Petitioner, therefore, the action taken
by the University in insisting petitioner's re-appearance for all
the four papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce
cannot be found fault with.
4. Heard Ms. P. Krishna Keertana, learned counsel for
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and
Family Welfare and Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent University.
5. On careful consideration of pleadings, mark sheet,
order dated 04.02.2026 in Writ Petition No.36837 of 2025,
answer script inspection proceedings and the relevant
provisions of the Regulations, 2023 as well as the submissions
advanced on either side, it is to be seen, the facts are not in
dispute, therefore, do not require elaborate reiteration. It is an
admitted position that Petitioner pursued M.D. Anesthesiology
at respondent college for the academic period 2022-25 and
appeared for Post Graduate Medical Examination conducted by
the respondent University in October, 2025. The examination
comprised four theory papers, viz. Paper-I Basic Sciences and
Applied Anatomy, Paper-II Systemic and Regional Anesthesia,
Paper-III Systemic and Super Specialty Anesthesia and Paper-IV
Recent Advances and ICU, in addition to practical/clinical and
viva voce components. It is also not in dispute that he secured
39 marks in Paper-I as against the minimum requirement of 40
marks and was consequently declared failed.
6. In the above factual backdrop, the principal issue
that arises for consideration is whether a candidate, who has
failed in one theory paper, can be permitted to re-appear only in
that particular paper, as contended by Petitioner or whether
such candidate is required to re-appear for all four theory
papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce examinations,
as contended by Respondents.
7. Petitioner seeks to draw support from Clause 8.4 of
the Regulations more particularly Clause (3) of the criteria for
evaluation, which provides that if any candidate fails even
under one head, he/she has to re-appear for both theory and
practical/clinical and viva voce examination. The contention of
Petitioner is that the said provision must be construed to mean
that re-appearance is confined only to the paper in which the
candidate has failed. This Court is unable to accept the said
contention. A statutory or regulatory provision cannot be read in
isolation or in a truncated manner so as to suit a particular
interpretation. The provision must be read harmoniously along
with the entire scheme of the Regulations. The regulatory
framework, as placed on record, clearly establishes that the Post
Graduate medical examination is a composite and integrated
assessment consisting of multiple components, namely theory
(four papers), practical/clinical and viva voce, and that each of
these components constitutes a "head of passing".
8. The criteria for evaluation unequivocally stipulate
that a candidate must secure not less than 50% marks in each
head of passing, which includes theory as a whole, and further
mandates that in each theory paper, a minimum of 40% must
be secured. Thus, the requirement is not merely paper-specific,
but is embedded within a larger framework of overall
competency across all components of the examination. The
expression 'fails even under one head' occurring in Clause (3)
cannot be narrowly construed to mean failure in a single paper
alone. The said expression, when read in the context of the
scheme of the examination, refers to failure in any component
or requirement that forms part of the overall assessment. Once
a candidate fails to meet the prescribed minimum in any one
component, the result is declared as 'failed', and the candidate
is required to undergo the process of re-assessment in
accordance with the regulatory scheme.
9. Respondents have categorically asserted that the
regulatory requirement is that upon failure in one head, the
candidate is required to re-appear for all the four theory papers
along with practical/clinical and viva voce. This interpretation,
in considered view of this Court, is consistent with the structure
and object of Post Graduate medical education, which is
designed to ensure comprehensive evaluation of a candidate's
knowledge, skill and competence, rather than fragmented or
paper-wise certification.
10. Acceptance of the interpretation sought to be
advanced by Petitioner would result in reading into the
Regulation something which is not expressly provided and
would defeat the uniformity and rigor of the evaluation process
prescribed for Post Graduate medical courses. Such an
interpretation cannot be adopted, particularly in the absence of
any ambiguity in the regulatory framework.
11. Insofar as the contention of Petitioner regarding
non-award of marks for Question No.6 is concerned, this Court
finds no merit in the same. It is an admitted position that
pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition
No. 36837 of 2025, Petitioner was permitted to inspect his
answer scripts upon approaching the Grievance Committee by
paying the requisite fee. He, in fact, availed the said opportunity
and verified the answer scripts.
12. The Regulations clearly provide that all answer
scripts shall be subjected to double valuation, and in cases
where there is a variation of 15% or more between the two
evaluators, the script shall be subjected to a third valuation. It
is also expressly stipulated that after computation and
declaration of results, revaluation is not permissible under any
circumstances. In the present case, it is the specific stand of
respondents that Petitioner did not secure any marks for the
answer to Question No.6 despite evaluation by two examiners.
Mere absence of markings or notations on a particular answer,
by itself, cannot be a ground for this Court to infer non-
evaluation or to undertake a re-assessment of the answer.
Evaluation of answer scripts is within the exclusive domain of
subject experts, and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal over such
academic assessments.
13. It is a settled principle that in matters relating to
academic evaluation, especially in specialized disciplines such
as medical education, the scope of judicial review is extremely
limited. Interference is warranted only in cases of manifest
arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. No
such circumstance is made out in the present case. Further, the
Regulations specifically provide that no grace marks are
permissible in Post Graduate examinations, either for theory or
for practical. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner has fallen short
by one mark cannot be a ground to seek relaxation or
indulgence from this Court.
14. It is also relevant to note that Petitioner has not
challenged the validity of the Post-Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2023. In the absence of any challenge to the
regulatory framework, he cannot seek a direction contrary to the
express scheme of the regulations. The action of Respondents is
strictly in accordance with the applicable Regulations. This
Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the said action.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, the contentions advanced by
Petitioner are devoid of merit and do not persuade this Court to
grant the relief sought for.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
17. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
