Rajaram Choudhary vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nashik Thro. Its Controller of Examination

¶1

PALLAVI MAHENDRAWARGAONKAR 1 908-WP-3450-2026 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.03.27 18:41:21 +0530

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3450 OF 2026

¶4

Rajaram Choudhary Versus Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nashik Thro. Its Controller of Examination & Anr.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Aaroh Kulkarni i/b. Mr. Atharva Kulkarni for Petitioner. Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1 – MUHS. Mr. Aryan Kalge for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND

¶9

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 26^th MARCH, 2026

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶13

Heard by consent of the parties.

¶14

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondents to forthwith correct the Internal Assessment marks of the Petitioner in the subject of Physiology from TH-00 and PR-00 to TH-40 and PR-60 and display the marks obtained by the Petitioner in the Theory and Practical components of the First Year MBBS Summer 2025 Supplementary Examination.

¶15

1/5

¶16

Pallavi

¶17

2 908-WP-3450-2026 (C).doc 4. Further direction is sought against Respondent No. 1 – University to declare and publish the corrected result of the Petitioner in the First Year MBBS Summer 2025 Supplementary Examination in accordance with law.

¶18

The result for the First Year MBBS Summer 2025 Supplementary Examination, had been declared on 7^th February 2026. The Petitioner although having passed in the Physiology subject, found out that his marks in the Internal Assessment were displayed as TH-00 and PR-00 instead of TH-40 and PR-60, as displayed in earlier mark-sheet, due to which, the Petitioner is shown as having failed the Physiology subject.

¶19

The Petitioner had addressed a written communication on 9^th February 2026 to the Professor and Head of the Department of Respondent No. 2-College pointing out the aforementioned error.

¶20

The Professor and Head of the Department of Respondent No.2 - College had addressed a written communication dated 9^th February 2026 to the Respondent No.1 – University admitting the error on their part in uploading the Internal Assessment marks and requesting correction of marks by annexing the Internal Assessment marksheet reflecting the actual and correct marks of the Petitioner in the subject of Physiology i.e. correcting marks TH-00 and PR-00 with TH-40 and PR-60 and which was

¶21

2/5

¶22

Pallavi

¶23

3 908-WP-3450-2026 (C).doc duly verified from the official records and signed by the Petitioner.

¶24

The Respondent No.1 – University by communication dated 23^rd February 2026 addressed to the Respondent No.2 – College conveyed the unanimous decision of the Board of Examinations viz. that the revised marks cannot be considered after the declaration of the results.

¶25

The Respondent No.2 – College again addressed communication dated 27^th February 2026 to the Respondent No.1 – University admitting error on their part and requesting correction of marks of the Petitioner in the subject of Physiology by annexing Internal Assessment Marksheet.

¶26

Mr. Aaroh Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the communications dated 9^th February 2026 and 27^th February 2026, which had been addressed by the Respondent No. 2 – College to Respondent No. 1 – University, by which the corrected mark-sheet had been annexed reflecting the actual and correct marks of the Petitioner. He has submitted that Respondent No. 1 – University has failed to act upon the communication as well as the Representation addressed by the Petitioner on 9^th February 2026.

¶27

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the Respondent

¶28

3/5

¶29

Pallavi

¶30

4 908-WP-3450-2026 (C).doc No. 1 – University, states that once the final results for the MBBS Physiology subject have been declared, the Internal Assessment marks in the Physiology subject cannot be corrected.

¶31

Mr. Aryan Kalge, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 – College, states that the Respondent No. 2 – College has accepted that while filling in the Internal Assessment marks in the Physiology subject, there had been an inadvertent error and which was corrected and brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 1 – University.

¶32

Having considered these submissions, we are of the view that there is a clear error in the original mark-sheet viz. instead of showing the Internal Assessment marks of the Petitioner in the Physiology subject, as TH-40 and PR-60, the mark-sheet displayed as TH-00 and PR-00 and due to which the Petitioner has been shown to have failed in the Physiology subject. This had been admitted by the Respondent No. 2 – College as borne out from the communications dated 9^th February 2026 and 27^th February 2026 to the Respondent No.1 - University, wherein the Respondent No. 2 – College has accepted the inadvertent error in the original mark-sheet and annexed the corrected mark-sheet, which was submitted to the Respondent No. 1 – University.

¶33

4/5

¶34

Pallavi

¶35

5 908-WP-3450-2026 (C).doc 14. Respondent No. 1 – University has not acted upon the

¶36

communications of the Respondent No. 2 – College, wherein the corrected mark-sheet has been forwarded and we do not accept the submission made by Respondent No. 1 – University that in view of declaration of the Physiology subject results of the Respondent No. 2 – College, the marksheet of the Petitioner showing the corrected marks in the Internal Assessment marks in the Physiology subject cannot be corrected.

¶37

We accordingly, direct the Respondents to forthwith correct the Internal Assessment marks of the Petitioner in the Physiology subject from TH-00 and PR-00 to TH-40 and PR-60 and to upload and display the marks obtained by the Petitioner in Theory and Practical components of the First Year MBBS Summer 2025 Supplementary Examination.

¶38

Respondent No. 1 – University is directed to declare and publish the corrected results of the Petitioner in the First Year MBBS Summer 2025 Supplementary Examination within a period of one week from the date of this order.

¶39

Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶40

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

¶41

5/5

¶42

Pallavi

Rajaram Choudhary v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nashik Thro. Its Controller of Examination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Choudhary v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Nashik Thro. Its Controller of Examination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Ganpati Nimgaonkar vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Secretary General

Rashmi Anil Keni Alias Bhamini S. Thanekar vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary General Administration Department and Anr.

S.S.P. Shikshan Sanstha a Trust vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Higher and Technical Education Dept.

Prathmesh Rajendra Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

S.S.P. Shikshan Sanstha a Trust vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Higher and Technical Education Dept.

Ramamurti Education Soc Thr Its Authorised Representative vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.