Dismissed

Mr Thejaswi Ketham v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023WP/18832/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition by MBBS students seeking a direction for revaluation using the average of the two highest marks from four or five evaluators, holding that the methodology of averaging all four or five evaluators' marks had already been upheld by earlier coordinate bench decisions and complied with by the university.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Thejaswi Ketham Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.18832 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

MR. THEJASWI KETHAM

¶11

S/O. DR. KETHAM

¶12

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT KETHAMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VIDHYARANYAPURA

¶13

NANJAPPA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560097 PURSUING 2^ND YEAR MBBS COURSE AT VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER

¶14

MR. AYUSHMAN SINGH

¶15

S/O. MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT NEW MINAL JK ROAD BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH (462021)

¶16

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

¶18

PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS AT SHRIDEVI MEDICAL COLLEGE TUMKUR

¶19

MR. BLESSON JACOB

¶20

S/O. MR. JACOB KUTTY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 438 D, SECTOR - 30 FARIDABAD, HARYANA, 121003 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS AT SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL

¶21

¶22

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶23

4. MR. NISHAL KUMAR R

¶24

S/O. RAVI M S AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI RANGADHAMA BEHIND MDCC BANK KRISHNARAJPET TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT 571426 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS AT HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶25

5. MR. DARSHAN Y

¶26

S/O. MR. YUVARAJA NAIK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT MURUNDI B THANDYA MURUNDI POST, ARSIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT -573122 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS AT HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶27

6. MR. PAVAN K

¶28

S/O. BRAMHAIAH K. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT #159, 4^TH CROSS SHAMARAJAPURA LAYOUT, NEAR SHASHANK AIKHYA AMBHABHAVANI TEMPLE ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560097 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶29

7. MS.THOKCHOM SUPRIYA DEVI

¶30

D/O. THOKCHOM SURJIT SINGH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT THINUNGEI AWANG LEIKAI BISHNUPUR DISTRICT MANIPUR – 795126, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & RESEARCH HOSPITAL, TUMKUR

¶31

¶32

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶33

8. MR.B.RAMAKANTH REDDY

¶34

S/O. B. V. RAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT B RAMAKANTH REDDY S/O. B V RAMANA REDDY 4-10-206/1, PRASHANTHI NAGAR PULIVENDLA, KADAPA (DIST) ANDHRA PRADESH -516390 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶35

9. MR. MOHSIN AL FIRDOSE KUSTAGI

¶36

S/O. MALIK SAB KUSTAGI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT "WARD NUMBER 27 HIREJANTKAL MAIN ROAD GANGAVATHI -583227" PURSUING 1^ST YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AL-AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

¶37

10.

¶38

MR. GOKULAPRIYAN K

¶39

S/O. KUMARAN S AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI RAMAPERU APARTMENT KOOTAPALI THIRUCHENGODE (637214) PURSUING 1^ST YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SRINIVAS MEDICAL COLLEGE MUKKA, MANGALORE

¶40

11. MS.POOJITHA.V

¶41

D/O. SRI HARI V AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT G6, VAISHNAVI HEAVENS APARTMENT SIDHARTHA COLONY, RAICHUR - 584101 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶42

¶43

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶44

12. MS. AKANSHA VERMA

¶45

D/O.MANOJ VERMA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT A/401 ROYAL ARCADE PIPLOD, SURAT - 395007 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶46

13. MR. VINAY M ITTAGI

¶47

S/O. MALLIKARJUN ITTAGI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.G-4 PARADISE RESIDENCY VENKATESH NAGAR - 585102 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT KBN MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶48

14. MR. AKSHATA ITAGI

¶49

S/O. MALLIKARJUN ITTAGI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT BADEKOLL CROSS HIREBAGEWADI - 591109 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT S. NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶50

MS. SPOORTI HAVARAGI

¶51

D/O. SANGANNA HAVARAGI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT "SECTOR NO: 54 PLOT NO: 26/D, NAVANAGAR BAGALKOT- 587103 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT S.NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE HSK HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587103

¶52

¶53

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶54

16. MR.VIGNESH S BASTI

¶55

S/O. SUDARSHAN B BASTI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT LAKSHMESWAR - 582116 PURSUING 2^ND YEAR MBBS COURSE AT GADAG INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶56

17. MR. U. MANIKANTA

¶57

S/O. U CHANDRASEKHAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT "ARYAN FOUNTAIN SQUARE, SARJAPUR ROAD ATTIBELE -562107 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT THE OXFORD MEDICAL COLLEGE & RESEARCH CENTRE

¶58

18.

¶59

MR. VIKRAMSING RAJA

¶60

S/O. AMARSING AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT BAGALKOT DIST. MUDHOL TALUK PIN NO-587313 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AKASH MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶61

19. MS. SPURTI SANJAY KOTENNAVAR

¶62

D/O. SANJAY KOTENNAVAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT LIG 209, ADARSH NAGAR NEAR CENTRAL BUS STOP VIJAYAPUR - 586103 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

¶63

¶64

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶65

20. MS. JAYSHREE M

¶66

D/O. MUNISWAMY G AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT SRI SATHYA SAI LAYOUT HOODI, BENGALURU - 560048 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶67

21. MR. BOMMIDENI SAITEJA

¶68

S/O. MR. SURENDAR

¶69

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT B-401, ASPEN BLOCK , BRIGADE ORCHIDS , DEVANAHALLI PURSUING 2^ND YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

MR. PATHAPALLY

SANKEERTHREDDY

S/O. SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT H. NO 1-1, CHINTHAGUDEM VILLAGE, BURGUL SHADNAGAR PURSUING 2^ND YEAR MBBS COURSE AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE RAICHUR

¶74

MS. DEEPIKA V

¶75

D/O. VENKATARAMANAIAH A. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT #4, 3^RD CROSS VARANASI ROAD, JAYSHREE LAYOUT, JINKETHIMMANAHALLI RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560016 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT RAJARAJESWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

¶76

¶77

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶78

MS. SHREYA PUJERI D/O. ULAVAYYA PUJERI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT SDM MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL DHARWAD-580009 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SDM MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

¶79

25. MS. UJWALA K. S.

¶80

D/O. SHANKARAPPA V. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT GANDHINAGAR 2ND CROSS

¶81

TIPTUR - 572201 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT M S RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶82

26. MR. G. SANDEEP TEJA

¶83

S/O. G SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT LV HEIGHTS PLOT NO.205, MARUTHI NAGAR MAIN ROAD PATTABIPURAM

¶84

GUNTUR - 522006 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶85

MR. SUMANTH REDDY S/O. SRIKANT REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 8/109/2, SHIVARAM TALKIES ROAD, BANAGAPALLI NANDYAL DIST. AP PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶86

¶87

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶88

28. MR. B. A. PRANAV

¶89

S/O. B. N. SESHADRI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT D2 , SV RESIDENCY, NANDI LAYOUT, HAVAMBAVI, BALLARI - 583103 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, BALLARI

¶90

29. MR. RAGA MOUNI SAI GEETHA

¶91

S/O. LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT "VILLA 42, CHAITANYA LA GROOVE, DREAM MEADOWS COLONY, NEAR RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL BROOKFIELD, BENGALURU- 560037" PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶92

30. MS. PREETHU M. M.

¶93

D/O. M C MARIGOWDA

¶94

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT#52/2, 2^ND CROSS KIRANGOOR NEW EXTENSION SRP TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶95

31. MS. J. TARUNI

¶96

S/O. J. VENKAT REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT MAYURI MARG BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD - 500016 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶97

¶98

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶99

32. MR. PETER SURAJ JOSEPH

¶100

S/O. JOSEPH RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 36, 4^TH CROSS 5^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶101

33. MS. RIFA MARYAM

¶102

D/O. ABU THALHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT OLD NO 4, NEW NO.3 VADAMARAKAYAR STREET CHENNAI - 600001, TAMIL NADU PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE VIJAYAPURA

¶103

34. MR. BHAVISH M.

¶104

S/O. MANJUNATH C. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.175, 6^TH MAIN 1^ST B CROSS, REMCO LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560104 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT B R AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶105

35.

¶106

MR. RAKESH KUMAR

¶107

S/O. SANTURAM AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT VPO JANDWA, TEHSILRATANGARH, DISTRICT-CHURU PIN CODE-331022, RAJASTHAN PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

¶108

¶109

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶110

36. MS. MANISHA

¶111

D/O. JASWANTH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND CANARA BANK TARA COMPLEX, BESIDE VEER GANGADHAR HOSPITAL SINDHANUR – 584128 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SSIMS & RC DAVANGERE

¶112

37. MR. VARUN VENKATESH

¶113

S/O. VENKATESH T. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI SAPTHAGIRI VIDYALAYA, GOWNIPALLI-563161 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SSIMS AND RC, DAVANGERE

¶114

38.

¶115

MS. SANGAMITRA D. S.

¶116

D/O. SOMANNA J. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT LR BHAVAN ARUVATHOKLU ROAD, GONIKOPPAL PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

¶117

39. MS. BOYAPATI SAI CHARITHA

¶118

D/O. B. SANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 2/336 SOCIETY COLONY, COLONY ROAD, MADANAPALLE CHITTOOR DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH -517325 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL

¶119

¶120

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶121

MS. KAVYASHREE CHAWHAN D/O. SHARANAPPA CHAWHAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT SWAGAT COLONY GDA LAYOUT NEAR DOMINANT SCHOOL UDNOOR ROA, GULBARGA - 585102 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT MAHADEVAPPA RAMPURE MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶122

41. MS. SOUJANYA CHIKARADDI

¶123

D/O. BASAVARAJ CHIKARADDI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT "SHRI ISHWAR KRUPA PLOT NO.24,25 AISHWARYA NAGAR ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYPUR - 586103 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR AT

¶124

S NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶125

MS. ANINDITA BHOWMIK

¶126

D/O. ASISH BHOWMIK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT JAGATPUR ABHOYNAGAR, AGARTALA TRIPURA WEST -799005 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶127

MS. GAYATRI KRISHNA E.,

¶128

D/O. E.R BALAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT EDASSERY VALAPPIL HOUSE POTTORE P.O POTTORE THRISSUR, KERALA PIN:680581 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE SHIVAMOGGA

¶129

¶130

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶131

44. MS. PRARTHANA M R

¶132

D/O. M V RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT #96,VIJAYNAGAR 4^TH STAGE, 1^ST PHASE

¶133

MYSURU-570030 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶134

45. MS. PRATHVI ALVA

¶135

D/O. JAGADISH ALVA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT ALVA’S RESIDENCE PANELA PAJEER POST & VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT BANTWAL TALUQ 574199 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶136

46. MR. HARISH S M

¶137

S/O SHIVAPPA M

¶138

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT HARISH SM NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE

¶139

PRASANNAHALLI DEVANAHALLI – 562110 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶140

47.

¶141

MR. RAHUL

¶142

S/O. SATPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE OF HIRANANDANI CALGARY - 562110 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶143

¶144

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶145

48. MR. ADHITYA HB

¶146

S/O. C BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT 10^TH CROSS, OPP. TO APR KALYANAMANTAPA BEGUR MAIN ROAD, HONGASANDRA BENGALURU-560068 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR COLLEGE AT SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶147

49. MS. VAISHNAVI NAIK

¶148

D/O. MANOJ NAIK AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT KBN MEDICAL COLLEGE GIRLS HOSTEL KALBURGI PIN:585102 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT KHAJA BANDE NAWAZ, KALBURGI

¶149

50. MR. HIBA M K

¶150

D/O. BASHEER M., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT MUTHACHIKUNNUMAL (HO), VANIMAL, KODIYURA(PO) KALLACHI(VIA), CALICUT - 673506 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE AT KANAACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶151

51. MS. SINCHANA U SHETTY

¶152

D/O MR. UDAYAKUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT CHETHANA GIRLS HOSTEL BIMS BELAGAVI SADASHIV NAGAR NEAR CHENNAMMA CIRCLE 590001 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN BELAGAVI, INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE COLLEGE

¶153

¶154

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶155

MS. DEVIKA NAMBIAR K D/O MR. M.AMBUJAKSHAN NAMBIAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT "DEVIKA NIVAS" AYAMPARA, MARAMKAVU,P.O PERIYA, KASARAGOD, KERALA 671316 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE COLLEGE

¶156

53. MS. SAI TEJASWINI N

¶157

D/O MR. NAGESHWAR RAO N AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT ROOM NO:207, 3^RD FLOOR, VAISHNAVU APARTMENTS, ADJ.NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE RAICHUR-584103 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶158

54.

¶159

MR. VRISHABH H K GOWDA

¶160

S/O MR. KIRAN KUMAR H G AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT #217, 11^TH MAIN AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI BENGALURU-560061 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶161

55. MS. R.P.GUNIKA JAIN

¶162

D/O MR. PARSHWANATH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT HINDUPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515201 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶163

¶164

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶165

56. MS. SHRUTI RATHOD

¶166

D/O MR. SOMANATH RATHOD AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT 219, VIVEKANAND NAGAR VIJAYAPUR TALUK VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR - 586109 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN GADAG INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶167

57. MR. PRASHANT MEENA

¶168

S/O MR. PANMAL MEENA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT MAHAVEER COLONY NEAR NEW NAGAR PALIKA AKLERA JHALAWAR, RAJASTHAN 336033 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

¶169

58. MS. DIVYA CH

¶170

D/O MR. NAGAMUNESHWAR RAO CH

¶171

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI CHENNA BASAVA NAGAR, PWD CAMP SINDHANUR - 584128 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE RAICHUR

¶172

59.

¶173

MR. KHURSHID ALAM BIRAJDAR

¶174

S/O MR. SAIFAN MULUK BIRAJDAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT H.NO 11-1041/34/JA6 MADINA COLONY, M.S.K.MILL'S KALABURAGI - 585103 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN GULBARGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KALABURAGI

¶175

¶176

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶177

60. MR. MOHAMMED ZAKI

¶178

S/O MR. MOHAMMED TAUQUEER AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS SRK GARDEN, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU- 560041 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶179

61. MR. K TOUHEED UR REHMAN

¶180

S/O MR. K MOHAMMED RAFEEQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT ASHRAYA COLONY DESHNUR SIRUGUPPA TALUK – 583 121 BELLARY DIST PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN VIJAYNAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶181

62. MR. MOHAMED AZARUDEEN M

¶182

S/O MR. MOHAMED IBRAHIM A.B AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 58, EAST STREET MANGALAMPET CUDDALORE DT – 606 104 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN THE OXFORD MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL

¶183

63. MR. ABHISHEK M N

¶184

S/O MR. NAGARAJU M T AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT #85 , 2^ND CROSS 1^ST MAIN , KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT BENGALURU NORTH - 560057 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶185

17 WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶186

64. MS. ROMITA KUMARI

¶187

D/O MR. ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT CD 100, DDA FLATS, 3^RD FLOOR, HARI NAGAR, DELHI-110064 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KVG MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

¶188

65. MS. HIBA UVAIZ

¶189

D/O MR. HUVAIZ M.H. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT MINA PUNNAPRA P.O. ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 688004 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KVG MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶190

66. MR. K. PRADEEP

¶191

S/O MR. KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 159/63 AS PETTAI MANI ROAD NAMAKKAL, PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶192

67. MR. AADIL MUHAMMED BASHEER

¶193

S/O MR. A ABDUL BASHEER AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT DARULNAJATH THEVALAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM KERALA – 690 524 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶194

MR. SYED ABDUL KHADEER S/O MR. SYED ABDUL SATTAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 2-9-31/1/A MADINA MASJID MARKET ROAD MAHBUBNAGAR 509001, PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶195

¶196

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶197

69. MS. MASHABA TANIYA

¶198

D/O MR. NAYEEM MIAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 21/55 WARD NO 16, BESIDE KC STREET BELLARY – 583 101 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA BANDA NAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶199

70. MR. SHUBHAM GARG

¶200

S/O MR. LAXMIKANT GARG AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT BYANIYA PADA HINDAUN CITY RAJASTHAN – 322 230 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN GULBARGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, KALABURAGI

¶201

71. MS. INSHA ARSHAD

¶202

D/O MR. ARSHAD JAMIL AHMAD AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NAUMAN CHAMBER BHIKHANA PAHARI, P.O MEHENDRU, PATNA - 800006, BIHAR PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶203

72. MS. MITHA M REDDY

¶204

D/O MR. MUNIRAJU C AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT MBT RESIDENCY CHANDAPURA CIRCLE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU 560099 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶205

¶206

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶207

73. MR. SUSHANTH V GOWDA

¶208

S/O MR. VISHNU KR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT F244 GOPALA GOWDA BADAVANE BEHIND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE SHIMOGA 577205 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SHAMANUR SHIVASHANKARAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE, DAVANGERE

¶209

74. MS. SAFHANA BARI

¶210

D/O MR. MOHAMMED ABDUL BARI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT HYDERABAD - 500030 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR IN KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶211

75. MS. MALAVIKA PATIL

¶212

D/O MR. ASHOKREDDY PATIL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT HNO:1-11-36/208 OPP RAMESH RESIDENCY BASAVESHWAR COLONY LINGSUGUR ROAD RAICHUR-584101 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶213

76. MR. SALMAN KHAN

¶214

S/O MR. NASEEM ULLAH KHAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT 16-11-16/G/J/102 AFZAL NAGAR MALAKPET HYDERABAD TELANGANA – 500 036 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA BANDA NAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶215

¶216

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶217

MR. SUHAIL O. S/O MR. O. ABOOBACKER AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT PAYANINGAL HOUSE KOZHIKODE - 673019 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶218

78. MS. K P ARUN PRATHIJNA

¶219

D/O MR. K P YAJNENDRA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT ATHRI HIGHLANDS OPP HUNDAI SHOW ROOM KUNTALPADY KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶220

79. MR. MANIKANDAN R

¶221

S/O MR. E V RAVEENDRAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT EDAVAN EDATHIL VEEDU , PO KURUMATHUR VIA KARIMBAM, KANNUR KERALA – 670 142 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶222

80. MR. BOOMIREDDI SREENIVASA PRANEETH

¶223

S/O MR. VENKAT AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT ANDHRA PRADESH – 518 005. PURSUING 3^RD YEAR IN THE OXFORD MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶224

¶225

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶226

81. MS. MADHU GUPTA

¶227

D/O MR. MANOJ KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT BGS GIRLS HOSTEL 560060 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN BGS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶228

MR. SAMEER M JAMEDAR

¶229

S/O MR. MOULA HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT JAMEDAR COMPOUND AZAD CIRCLE, JAWAHAR ROAD KOPPAL – 583231 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SDM COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND HOSPITAL

¶230

¶231

MR. GOKUL GOPAL V

¶232

S/O MR. VENUGOPALAN NAIR S

¶233

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT TRA66, MV LANE VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM KERALA 695013 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶234

¶235

MR. YAJUVENDRASINH VAGHELA

¶236

S/O MR. AJITSINH VAGHELA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT PLOT NO D/6 GREEN CITY SOCIETY, SECTOR 26 GANDHINAGAR 382028 GUJARAT PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶237

¶238

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶239

MR. BASHAVANI RAGHAVENDRA S/O MR. BASHAVANI RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT 10-4-99/1/B/1 VIVEKANANDA NAGAR COLONY NEAR RAMREDDY EYE HOSPITAL ENUGONDA 509001 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶240

86. MR. RAVI SANKAR PATNAIK

¶241

S/O MR. GANAPATHI PATNAIK AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT HIG:'78'.. 'VASAVI NILAYAM'

¶242

SAGAR NAGAR VISHAKAPATNAM, A.P 530007 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN SREE SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶243

87. MR. MAAZ KHAN M B

¶244

S/O MR. M BASHEER KHAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT DAVANAGERE -577002 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN SHAMANUR SHIVASHANKARAPPA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶245

88. MR. YAASHVANTHIRAAN PUVANTHIRAN

¶246

S/O MR. PUVANTHIRAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2 SECTION 11/6C, 46200 PETALING JAYA SELANGOR, MALAYSIA PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN SS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶247

¶248

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶249

MS. SHEETAL PALLA D/O MR. SHARANAPPA PALLA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT OPP MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR SCHOOL KUSNOOR ROAD KALABURAGI 585101 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶250

90.

¶251

MR. VALABOJU RUTHVIK

¶252

S/O MR. V MOHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT SHAMBUNIPET WARANGAL, TELANGANA – 506 002 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶253

91. MR. MOINAK PANDA

¶254

S/O MR. DEBASIS PANDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT MAHAVEER CEDAR APARTMENT, AGB LAYOUT CHIKKASANDRA BENGALURU - 560090 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶255

92. MR. SARANG S

¶256

S/O MR. P V SURENDRAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT SARANGAM NEAR ANTHOOR LP SCHOOL THALIYIL, KANNUR, PO KALLIASERRI 670562 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶257

¶258

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶259

93. MR. DARSHAN S M

¶260

S/O MR. S MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT #1866/23 17^TH CROSS OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, VMG LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR DAVANGERE – 577 005 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS IN JJM MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶261

94. MR. P MARUTI

¶262

S/O MR. M PALANISAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT GANDHINAGAR SUNDHARAPURAM COIMBATORE – 641 024 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR IN MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶263

95. MR. SHAHABUDDIN MUNSHI

¶264

S/O MR. MOHAMMED RAFI MUNSHI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT #42, NOOR E MAJEED, 2ND CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR (CHAITANYA NAGAR), R N SHETTY ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 030. PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶265

96. MR. MUPPALA ABHISHEK CHOWDHARY

¶266

S/O MR. MUPPALA JANARDHAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT RAMAN BHAVAN ANUSHA NAHAR NEAR NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE RAICHUR – 584 103 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶267

¶268

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶269

MR. VISHESH KUMAR S/O MR.VIRENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT BY PASS NEAR PARSHURAM CHOWK, ANAJ MANDI SHIKARPUR DISTRICT BULANDSHAHR UTTAR PRADESH - 203395 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN S.NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HSK HOSPITAL

¶270

98.

¶271

MR. SHARANABASAPPA

¶272

S/O MR. KASHINATH MOTAKPALLI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT PLOT NO.66

¶273

GODUTAI NAGAR NEAR SHIV MANDIR SHARAN NILAYA KALABURAGI - 585102 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MEDICAL COLLEGE GULBARGA

¶274

99. MS. SHIVANI RACHATTE

¶275

D/O MR. JAGANNATH RACHATTE AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT PLOT NO.48 SWASTIK NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD GULBARGA – 585 105 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE GULBARGA

¶276

26 WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶277

100. MR. MOHAMMED SHIBIL M

¶278

S/O MR. POCKER HAJI M AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT CHUNDAKKAD HOUSE OZHUKUR P.O, MALAPPURAM KERALA – 673642 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS IN KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶279

101. MR. KAMITHAKAR NAGABHUSHANA SANDEEP

¶280

S/O. MR. K.P.NAGABHUSHAN RAO

¶281

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT 6-197 SRI PANDURANGA TEXTILES MAIN ROAD, ROLLA MANDAL AND POST MADAKASIRA TQ A.P . 515321 PURSUING YEAR 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTER BENGALURU

¶282

102. MR. THEJASWI V T

¶283

S/O. MR. TITUS VARGHESE

¶284

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT SUDHAMA HOUSE KUTTRUPADY VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR .TQ .D.K PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KARWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES KARWAR

¶285

MR.ANJIR RAJA ALAM S/O.MR.ABDUR RAHIM AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT LICHUBARI, MANIK NAGAR.JORHAT, ASSAM PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE, VIJAYPUR-586108

¶286

27 WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶287

104. MISS. URVASHI SANDILYA

¶288

D/O. MR. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT RAJENDRA NAGAR ROAD NO 4 , NEAR SHUBHA GIRLS HOSTEL PATNA, BIHAR – 800016 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶289

MR. AKULA GNANESWAR KUMAR S/O. MR. AKULA MALLIKARJUN A AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 3/423, PUTTAPARTHI ROAD, KOTHACHERUVU SATHYASAI DISTRICT - 515133 PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶290

MR. KARTHIK K

¶291

S/O. MR. KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT #143, VIGNESHWARA NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, DEVARAJ URS NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577204 PURSUING YEAR 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BIDAR

¶292

MR. VIKAS MEENA

¶293

S/O. MR. RAMDAYAL MEENA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT GANDHINAGAR MAGRA PUNJLA, JODHPUR RAJASTHAN – 342 304 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KARWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KARWAR

¶294

¶295

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶296

108. MR. SYED AQSA K S

¶297

S/O. MR. SYED SIRAJ

¶298

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT D/NO 19/148 MUSLIM BLOCK K R NAGAR 571602 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, SHIVAMOGGA

¶299

109. MR . ASHIK SHETTY

¶300

S/O. MR. ARUN KUMAR SHETTY

¶301

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT 2-1-B-1 , KOPPALA, HALEANGADI, MANGALORE, DK -574146 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶302

110. MISS. VAKA LAVANYA

¶303

D/O. MR. V. NARASAREDDY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT HNO: 15-8-573 SRINAGAR COLONY ROAD NO : 1 NEAR MAMATHA MEDICAL COLLEGE BESIDE CHERUKURI APARTMENT ROTARY NAGAR KHAMMAM PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE THE OXFORD MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER

¶304

111. MISS. RESHMA M.R

¶305

D/O. MR. C.RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT SHARAN RESIDENCY KUVEMPU NAGAR, GULBARGA PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KHAJA BANDA NAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶306

29 WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶307

MR. THISHON KUMAR TS S/O. MR. THILAK KUMAR PCN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT SWAMIYARMADAM PILAVILAI, KATTATHURAI (P.O) K.K DIST, 629158, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶308

113. MR. LOKESH

¶309

S/O. MR. NAGSHETTY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT 1^ST CROSS SAJJANSHETTY NIVAS RAM NAGAR CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR 585401 PURSUING YEAR MBBS 4TH YEAR COURSE IN COLLEGE ADICHUNCHANAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶310

114. MR. B.JEREMIAH RAKESH

¶311

S/O. MR. R.BOTHIRAJ

¶312

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 1265 DIVYASHREE REPUBLIC WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶313

MR. IMAYABARATHI

¶314

S/O. MR. MURUGESAN

¶315

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT L353, CEDAR BLOCK BRIGADE ORCHARDS DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU-562110 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶316

¶317

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶318

MISS. KRUTHIKA B NAYAK D/O. MR. B K BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT JANAKPURI NEW DELHI: 110058 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE BASAVESHWARA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL

¶319

MR. PRINCE OOMMEN

¶320

S/O. MR. OOMMEN MATHEW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT MALIYIL PREM NIVAS, HILLVIEW GARDENS KANGIRATHUMOOD JUNCTION ALLAPUZHA DISTRICT POOMALA P.O 689520 PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE MS RAMIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶321

118. MISS. JINAL DAXINI

¶322

D/O. MR. NIKHIL DAXINI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT #306, HOYSALA DREAMZ, JALADARSINI LAYOUT SANJAY NAGAR BENGALURU 560094 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE M.S. RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶323

MR. SHANKAR ALUR

¶324

S/O. MR. A.B.NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO:-4155/2 7^TH MAIN, 17^TH CROSS KUVEMPUNAGAR, M.C.C 'B' BLOCK DAVANGERE PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE J.J.M MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶325

¶326

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶327

MISS. SOORA CHANDANA D/O. MR. SOORA CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 18-35-S4-171 1ST FLOORS RAMCHANDRA NAGAR KT ROAD TIRUPATHI CHITTOR DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶328

MR. SYED ZEESHAN QUADRI S/O. MR. SYED ZAHEERULLAH QUADRI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT KHAJA COLONY, BADA ROZA NEAR BI BI RAZA DEGREE COLLEGE KALABURAGI 585 104 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶329

MISS. SAUMYA KUMARI D/O. MR. SHAMBHU SINGH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT BHUVANA PG SAHAKAR NAGAR 560092, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU

¶330

MISS. KUMARI AMISHA D/O. MR. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT MAA PANCHA DEVI HOSPITAL LINE BAZAR PURNIA BIHAR 854301 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SAPHTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶331

32 WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶332

MISS. MRINALINI SHARMA D/O. MR. RAJA RAM SHARMA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT TRIVENI GIRLS HOSTEL, MSR NAGAR MATHIKERE, 560054 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE MS RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶333

MR. INDRAJEET TYAGI S/O. MR. SURESHCHANDRA TYAGI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT 10/36 VITTHAL NAGAR KALABURGI 585103 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE MAHADEVAPPA RAMPURE MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶334

MR. SHRINATH HADAKAR S/O. MR. MARUTI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT SAPTHAGIRI MEDICAL BOYS HOSTEL, BENGALURU 560090 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BANGALORE

¶335

MR. ABHISHEK VAISHNAV S/O. MR. DAMODAR DAS VAISHNAV AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT 64 SHIV COLONY SAVARIYA ROAD NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL RAS 306101 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶336

¶337

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶338

MISS. PRATHIKSHA BM D/O. MR. MANJUNATH BN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT BANGLORE RURAL DEVANAHALLI BRIGADE ORCHIDS BANYAN G BLOCK, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶339

129. MR. ASLAM MOHAMMED K

¶340

S/O. MR. P. S KOCHU MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT #7, ROCHIE ENCLAVE BANJARA MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶341

130. MR. PRANAI ROY

¶342

S/O. MR. ROY

¶343

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO: A9, CIDBI CEDAR APARTMENTS, EVERGREEN ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680005 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶344

131. MISS. MADHUVADHANI M

¶345

D/O. MR. P MURUGAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT 117, MAHAVEER LAKES, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD KENGERI, BENGALURU 560060 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE BGS GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶346

¶347

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶348

MR. MILIND GOSAI S/O. MR. MANISH GOSAI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT D302, ASPEN BLOCK, BRIGADE ORCHARDS, DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU 562110 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE

¶349

133. MISS. TANVI GOEL

¶350

D/O. MR. RAJEEV GOEL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT 14-15, PUNJABI BAGH AMBALA CANTT, HARYANA 133001 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER

¶351

134. MR. KATIKA SOHAIL

¶352

S/O. MR. K.SOFIRAJAK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT H.NO:- 7/115 SIDDAPPAPALEM STREET KOSIGI MANDAL ANDHRA PRADESH 518313 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE DR. B R AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶353

135. MR. ASHIR ABDUL KHADER

¶354

S/O. MR. ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT ZION PERINGATHOOR, KANNUR, KERALA - 670675 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE

¶355

¶356

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶357

MISS. MOUKTHIKA. M D/O. MR. M.BUJJIBABU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT 406, VAISHNAVI APARTMENT NEAR NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANTRALAYAM ROAD RAICHUR – 584103, PURSUING YEAR 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶358

137. MR. JITHRAJ P S

¶359

S/O.MR.PUSHPARAJAN K AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT SREEJA BHAVAN THEKKINKADU KALLINGAL NAGAROOR (PO) ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE TUMKUR

¶360

138. MR. THUSHAR P

¶361

S/O. MR. B S PUTTEGOWDA

¶362

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO 99, 2^ND CROSS, L.I.C LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU 560098, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶363

139. MISS. ANJALI R NATH

¶364

D/O. MR. RAGHU V AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT INDEEVARAM MYTHRI NAGAR 90A ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM 691002 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶365

¶366

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶367

MR. SURENDER S S/O. MR.TNK SUNDARARAJAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT B - 014, EUPHORIA SUNCITY APARTMENTS, SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD, IBLUR BENGALURU- 560102 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶368

MISS. MISBHA NAZ RABBANI D/O. MR. P MOHAMMED JAVID RUBBANI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT KBN GIRLS, HOSTEL RAUZA BURG GULBARGA 585104 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE KHAJA BANDHE NAWAZ COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

¶369

MISS. MADHURI REDDY D/O. R.V.SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT D/O REDDY VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HOUSE NUMBER 28-11-5 RANGAMTHOTA, MUSLIM STREET, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 534211, PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

¶370

¶371

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶372

143. MISS. GOWRI SHANKAR.S D/O. MR. R.SEKAR

¶373

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT LIG:1147 42^ND CROSS, RAYAKOTTA HUDCO RAYAKOTTA ROAD, HOSUR:635109 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶374

144. MR. ALISHA ASHOK

¶375

S/O. MR. ASHOK KUMAR LAKSHMANAN

¶376

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT SOORYA PARK NEAR MUNCIPAL OFFICE MAIN ROAD ATTINGAL P.O TRIVANDRUM PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶377

145. MR. VUBBARA SRI CHARAN

¶378

S/O. MR. V SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶379

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT SLV HOMES BROOKBOND CROSS WHITEFIELD 560066 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE

¶380

¶381

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶382

MR. PAVAN KUMAR

¶383

S/O. MR. ISHWAR

¶384

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT SHOBHA NIVAS GANESH NAGAR, MANNALLI ROAD BIDAR 585403 PURSUING 4^TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE

¶385

MISS. KATTAMURI BHUVANA D/O.MR.K CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT- C001, NCC URBAN SQUARE PARK UMAMAHESRARAO COLONY PATTABHIPURAM GUNTUR – 522 006 PURSUING 3^RD YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE SSIMS AND RC

¶386

…PETITIONERS

¶387

(BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE)

¶388

AND

¶389

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶390

THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET – 14, SECTOR- 8, DWARKA PHASE I NEW DELHI – 110 077 BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

¶391

…RESPONDENTS

¶392

(BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶393

¶394

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶395

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1UNIVERSITY TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE SUBJECTS IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN DECLARED TO BE UNSUCCESSFUL IN MBBS (RS3) EXAMINATIONS OF JULY/AUGUST 2022 IN TERMS OF REGULATION 13 OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION REGULATIONS, 1997 AND A FURTHER DEVIATION VALUATIONS ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF MORE THAN 15% MARKS BETWEEN THE EVALUATORS, IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AND ETC.

¶396

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶397

ORDER

¶398

The petitioners in this writ petition are all students of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) course enrolled in different colleges across the State of Karnataka affiliated to respondent No.1 – University. The petitioners are all enrolled themselves prior to the academic year 2019-2020 and hence, they are classified under the ‘Revised Scheme – 3’ (RS3) batch. Petitioners belong to different academic years of the said MBBS Course.

¶399

Respondent No.1 - University announced the Undergraduate Theory Examination of RS3 Scheme vide notification bearing No.R(E)/DR-I/MBBS(RS3)-Exam/JulAug22/17/2022-23 dated 13.06.2022. In pursuance to the

¶400

¶401

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶402

aforesaid notification, the theory examination was conducted in the months of July/August 2022 by respondent No.1 – University, in which the petitioners have appeared.

¶403

On declaration of results in September 2022, the petitioners were declared as unsuccessful, in atleast one of the subjects, having not secured the minimum marks of 50% as prescribed by respondent No.1 – University. It is the case of the petitioners that some of them were declared as unsuccessful for not having secured the minimum marks by a small margin.

¶404

The petitioners were shocked to see the results in which they were unsuccessful and were dissatisfied by the process of evaluation methodology of respondent No.1 – University. According to the petitioners, the evaluation of answer scripts was to be conducted by four Evaluators as per the Regulation 13(2) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short ‘GME Regulations, 1997’) and in complete disregard to the several directions issued by this Court had caused/conducted the evaluation of answer scripts by only two Evaluators. In some of

¶405

¶406

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶407

the cases, there was difference of more than 30% between the two Evaluators and despite there being erratic and vast deviation of marks awarded by the two Evaluators. Respondent No.1 - University failed to refer the marks sheet of the petitioners for further evaluation by the third Evaluator.

¶408

It is the case of petitioners that they are victims of erratic evaluation and therefore, they sought for revaluation of their answer scripts by two additional Evaluators and in case of deviation evaluation thereof, if the difference of marks awarded by the Evaluators inter se is more than 15% to be referred to third Evaluator. Respondent No.1 - University has not considered the request of the petitioners for two additional Evaluators and for deviation evaluation methodology as prescribed, which is in violation of Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997.

¶409

Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶410

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to Respondent No.1 University to conduct two

¶411

¶412

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶413

additional valuations of the subjects in which the Petitioners have been declared to be unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) Examinations of July/August 2022 in terms of Regulation 13 of the Medical Council of India Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 and a further deviation valuations on there being a difference of more than 15% marks between the evaluators, in a time bound manner; (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to Respondent No.1 University to, upon conduct of two or three additional valuations as the case may be, declare fresh result of the subjects in which the Petitioners have been declared to be unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) Examinations of July/August 2022 by computing the average of the two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by the four or five evaluators, as the case may be, in a time bound manner;

¶414

¶415

¶416

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶417

the case and/or in the interest of justice and equity.

¶418

Respondent No.1 - University filed detailed statement

¶419

of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and it would not survive for further consideration by this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed, in view of several judgments passed by this Court pertaining to the very same subject matter. It is further pleaded in the statement of objections that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 22.09.2022, respondent No.1 - University has conducted ‘two additional evaluation’ in respect of the subjects, in which the petitioners were declared to be unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) examination held in July/August 2022 and the results were declared on the basis of the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of University by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Basanth K.B. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP.No.231/2021 and connected matters, order dated 10.02.2021].

¶420

It is further stated that as per the judgment in

¶421

Basanth’s case stated supra , in view of the directions passed by

¶422

¶423

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶424

this Court to the University to adopt the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing PG students of the University by identifying all the cases where there is 15% or more in the four valuations and send them to the 5^th valuation and has further ‘directed the University to apply the provisions governing the PG students of the University after 5^th valuation and proceed to issue marks card’. It is also stated that the order passed by this Court is final and binds all, the University and the students of RS3 batch. It is further stated that as per the Ordinance governing the PG course, the results have been declared by ‘computing the average of total marks awarded by the four valuators for the paper’ and ‘the writ issued’ by this Court in Basanth’s case is duly followed and complied by the University and accordingly, the results are declared.

¶425

It is further stated that in the light of the aforesaid

¶426

judgment rendered by this Court, prayer No.2 sought for by the petitioners to conduct ‘two or three additional valuations’ as the case may be and to declare fresh results of subject examination, by computing ‘the average of two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by the 4 or 5 Evaluators’ is not

¶427

¶428

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶429

maintainable, is contrary to law and would ‘contradict’ the very basis of the earlier judgments in Basanth’s case stated supra and also in the case of Neelesh Mehta vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP.No.31335/2019 and connected matters, order dated 10.08.2020].

¶430

It is further stated that the consequential prayer No.2, ‘to direct or to conduct two to three additional valuations’ to declare fresh results by computing ‘the average of two highest marks’ amongst the 4 or 5 Evaluators runs contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Basanth’s and Neelesh Mehta’s cases stated supra .

¶431

It is also the say of respondent No.1 - University that

¶432

in the case of Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP.No.13312/2022 and connected maters, order dated 27.07.2022], a similar relief was sought by the petitioners therein seeking to contend that they are entitled to ‘computation of results’ after such additional evaluation and this Court by relying on the judgment rendered in Basanth’s case stated supra , has dismissed the said writ petition.

¶433

¶434

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶435

It is further stated by respondent No.1-University that prayer No.1 sought for by the petitioners for a direction to the University to conduct further deviation valuation by taking into account the difference of more than 15% marks between the valuators would also not be maintainable, which runs contrary

¶436

to the statute and Ordinance. It is further stated that the University has adopted the formula prescribed in the Ordinance governing PG course by applying the judgment in Basanth’s case stated supra for valuation of petitioners. Hence, the writ petition would not be maintainable. It is also pleaded that the present writ petition does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the University in evaluating the petitioners’ answer papers, more so, for the reason, the petitioners have not questioned the correctness or otherwise of the ‘writ directions’ issued in Basanth’s case stated supra . On the basis of these pleadings, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶437

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Aditya Sondhi appearing

¶438

on behalf of learned counsel Sri A.L.Parashuram representing the petitioners, in his erudite manner, contends that Regulation

¶439

¶440

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶441

13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 prescribes that each answer paper of a candidate pursuing the course is to be evaluated by four examiners, but, it does not specify the methodology of computation of results upon valuation by the four/five Evaluators as the case may be. Whereas, in respect of

¶442

Post Graduate Medical Students, Clause-4a of the ‘Ordinance governing Post Graduate, including PG-Diploma and Super specialty answer scripts evaluation’ (‘the PG Regulations’) unequivocally contemplates the method of computation of the results i.e., the average of total marks awarded by four valuators for the paper. (Underlying by me)

¶443

He further contends that strangely a specific regulation as to how the results is to be computed upon evaluation by four/five evaluators is conspicuously absent as regards the UG course. To elaborate this, learned Senior Counsel juxtaposes the UG Regulations and PG Regulations to evidence the fact that no such Regulation is forthcoming in UG course.

¶444

Learned Senior Counsel contends that an interpretation, that the average of the marks i.e. awarded by

¶445

¶446

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶447

the four Evaluators may be construed while calculating the results, will have the effect of reading the PG Regulations into the UG Regulations in disregard to the difference between the two Regulations. Therefore, he contends that when there is conspicuous omission in prescribing the methodology of computation of results in respect of UG students, the question of invoking PG Regulations to the UG students is farfetched, unless the same is explicitly prescribed in the Regulations. To this, he further adds that the casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in case of clear necessity and when reason for it, is found in the four corners of the statute itself, but at the same time, the casus omissus should not be readily inferred.

¶448

Learned Senior Counsel astutely contends that in the absence of an express provision in the Regulations, a beneficial interpretation in favour of the students must be preferred. He further assertively contends that the provision for revaluation is a beneficial provision intended for the benefit of the student community and it should be interpreted in favour of students in the event of any ambiguity. He also contends that the words

¶449

¶450

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶451

cannot be read into the Ordinance or the Regulation in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the students, even if a vacuum is created and if anything other than what is stipulated in the Regulations is inferred or assumed, the same would be detrimental to the interest of the students and such interpretation must be eschewed.

¶452

Learned Senior Counsel eloquently contends that the average of best two marks being beneficial to the students has to be considered. According to him, a student applies for revaluation only when he is not satisfied with the result and is of the opinion that he/she has secured marks which is not commensurate to his/her performance. Under such circumstances, if the result is taken by computing the average of marks awarded by four Evaluators, the same will leave the student in a ‘worse-off’ situation than what he was before the revaluation process. He further contends that the average of

¶453

two highest marks awarded by all the Evaluators would have a moderating effect and that the students marks may increase or at the most would remain the same.

¶454

¶455

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶456

Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the

¶457

average of two highest marks awarded amongst all the Evaluators would benefit the student and protect them against the erratic evaluation process. He further contends that respondent No.1 - University by way of Ordinance/notification governing the Central Assessment Program (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all UG Health Science Courses of the University dated 05.09.2022 has, for all examinations conducted on or after 01.09.2022, prescribed that the theory papers of the course be evaluated by two Evaluators and the highest amongst the two marks be declared as the result. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the present being the last examination under the old Regulations, a beneficial interpretation in favour of the students requires to the preferred and adopted.

¶458

Learned Senior Counsel relies on the following decisions:

¶459

Ms.Nireeksha S vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.10244/2021 and connected matters, Order dated 01.07.2021];

¶460

¶461

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶462

2. Rahul V Reddy vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

¶463

Science [WP No.8692/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 21.04.2022];

¶464

Dhisha Vivek vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.7999/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 19.04.2022];

¶465

Sanjna Hedni vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.9285/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 05.05.2022];

¶466

Neelesh Mehta vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.31335/2019 and connected matters, Order dated 10.08.2020];

¶467

Anusha L.G. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.8862/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 26.04.2022];

¶468

Basanth K.B. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.231/2021 and connected matters, Order dated 10.02.2021];

¶469

Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.13312/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 27.07.2022];

¶470

Kumari Renuka vs. The Karnataka Pre-university

¶471

Board reported in ILR 1997 KAR 3179 ;

¶472

¶473

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶474

Per contra , learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri B.S.Sachin for respondent No.1 – University, in his fervent manner articulated by stating that the writ petition preferred by the petitioners is not maintainable primarily for the reason that it is basic fundamental principle of law that to seek for a writ of mandamus there has to be firstly, a demand and the said demand should have been refused or not complied to invoke the writ jurisdiction of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶475

In the present case, there is admittedly no such demand made and to worsen the case of the petitioners, there is no refusal or rejection, but rather respondent No.1 - University has obeyed the law laid down by this Court by way of writ of mandamus in Basanth’s case stated supra , which has clarity and there is absolutely no ambiguity.

¶476

Learned Senior Counsel in poignant manner further contends that as per Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, there is a clear prescription of four examiners and out of the said four examiners, 50% must be external examiners and

¶477

¶478

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶479

that the senior most internal examiner will act as the Chairman and Coordinator of the whole examination program, so that, the uniformity in the matter of assessment of the candidate is maintained. He further contends that in the present case, the petitioners have not laid a foundation and made averments for the prayer that they have sought for with regard to the valuations being conducted on the basis of average of two highest marks by the Evaluators.

¶480

It is also seriously contended by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioners are liable for suppressio veri and suggestio falsi , as they have deliberately suppressed the material facts before this Court. Learned Senior Counsel says this by conviction for the fact that few of the petitioners in this case were the parties as petitioners in Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha’s case stated supra , but have deliberately not bothered to bring it to the notice of this Court with regard to rejection of their writ petition in Jordan’s case. It is the bounden duty of the petitioners and the duty cast upon them to reveal all material facts which is within their knowledge and not suppress any such fact, which would amount to deliberate

¶481

¶482

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶483

suppression of material facts, depriving the petitioners of any relief to be granted.

¶484

Learned Senior Counsel further contends that it is a misconception ‘to premise’ that the provisions of revaluations are intended to benefit the students in clearing their subjects. In fact, it is a mechanism to address the issue of possible erratic evaluation when valuations are made to a large number of candidates. He further contends that the process adopted by respondent No.1 - University is pursuant to several direction issued by this Court, wherein the University has conducted two additional valuation strictly by applying the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of the University by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Basanth’s case stated supra .

¶485

It is by virtue of Basanth’s case stated supra that respondent No.1 - University was directed to adopt the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing PG students including the methodology of evaluation by average of four Evaluators and to round off to the nearest value while computing the results. Respondent No.1 - University being bound by the writ

¶486

¶487

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶488

orders issued by this Court, has obeyed the same and implemented it in its true letter and spirit, thereby it would now, not be permissible for the petitioners to contend that the revaluation methodology should be conducted according to their choice of average of two highest marks from the evaluators to be taken from amongst four or five Evaluators.

¶489

Learned Senior Counsel further contends that as stated earlier, in the Jordan’s case stated supra, similar relief was sought for by few of the petitioners which was out rightly rejected by this Court relying on the judgment rendered in Basanth’s case stated supra . Hence, the petitioners now cannot approbate and reprobate at their own whims and fancies to seek a choice of their own evaluation methodology than what is prescribed by the GME Regulations, 1997 and the writ direction issued by this Court in Basanth’s case stated supra . Learned Senior Counsel further contends that in Nireeksha’s case stated supra , similar situation had arosen and this Court relying on Basanth’s case, disposed of the writ petition.

¶490

Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the petitioners do not have an inherent right to choose the

¶491

¶492

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶493

methodology of evaluation as per their choice. It is respondent No.1 - University, the State/Central authority which prescribes the methodology and the process of evaluation. He also contends that generally in the matters of education, the Courts should be circumspect in substituting its own views as to what is prudent or wise in relation to academic matters. It should be left to the academicians to do their job and the Courts should refrain in treading to their territory of policy decisions. To substantiate and articulate this aspect, he relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others reported in (1984)4 SCC 27 .

¶494

On the basis of these submissions, learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief much less the relief of writ of mandamus, or for that matter, even the discretionary relief as it would set a bad precedent in the Courts across the country. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶495

¶496

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶497

Learned counsel Sri N.Khetty representing respondent No.2, in his usual discerning style, vehemently contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of suppression of material facts and also for the reason that what is sought by the petitioners with regard to evaluation of average of two highest marks by four/five Evaluators has already been decided by several orders of Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel lays stress on the GME Regulations, 1997, wherein Regulation 13(2) prescribes four examiners, out of whom, 50% must be internal examiners and out of the said four examiners, senior most internal examiners to act as a Chairman and coordinator of the whole examination programme, so that, there could be uniformity in the matter of assessment of candidates.

¶498

Learned counsel Sri Khetty, in his typical erudite manner, further contends that the students sitting for the examination should not aim to score 50% to merely secure a pass mark, whereas, it is the intent of the Legislation and also for a good health care system and for having better qualified Doctors having expertise, to score more than merely 50%

¶499

¶500

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶501

marks for the betterment of the patients and society. He also reiterates the contentions put-forth by learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik in supporting the argument that it is a misconception that the provisions of revaluation are intended to benefit students in clearing their subjects, whereas it is a mechanism to address the issue of possible erratic valuation, if any.

¶502

Learned counsel further controverts the arguments of the petitioners’ counsel that the evaluation methodology by the four/five Evaluators should enure to the benefit of the students and cannot go lower than the higher marks secured despite lesser marks scored in the revaluation. To this, learned counsel contends that the revaluation methodology is premised on the basis that whatever revaluation marks are secured by the students, the same would replace the original marks of the students, be it higher or lower. It cannot be at the whims and fancies of the students or the marks beneficial to the students.

¶503

Learned counsel further contends that the GME Regulations, 1997, is not disturbed or altered by the Medical Council of India or by the Courts, the same stands good even

¶504

¶505

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶506

as on date, which clearly prescribes evaluation by four examiners. It is also the contention of learned counsel Sri N.Khetty that few of the petitioners in this petition have filed multiple writ petitions in WP.Nos.13312/2022 and 18832/2022 namely, Vinay M.Ittagi, Karthik K., Ashik Shetty, Pranai Roy and they were unsuccessful as the petitions came to be dismissed. Learned counsel further contends that Regulation 14(1)(b) of the PG Regulations prescribes two external and two internal examiners for examinations.

¶507

Learned counsel further contends that in Neelesh Mehta’s case stated supra , this Court quashed the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 and explained the Ordinance of 2012 and held that RS3 Schemes students valuation of answer scripts is to be by ‘set of four examiners’ in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997. Learned counsel further contends that in Basanth’s case stated supra , this Court quashed the Ordinance dated 13.10.2020 and directed valuation of RS3 MBBS students answer scripts of failed students on par with PG students Regulations and by taking average of four best total marks awarded amongst four/five examiners.

¶508

¶509

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶510

He further contends that in Nireeksha’s case stated supra , this Court reiterated and followed the decisions in Neelesh Mehta’s case stated supra and that of Basanth’s case stated supra by clarifying that the students admitted prior to academic year 2019-2020 are entitled for additional two Evaluators in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997. This judgment came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.771/2021 dated 12.08.2021. He further contends that in several other cases, the relief of taking top two marks amongst four/five evaluation marks was rejected by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel further contends that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners would not be helpful to them, as it is no more res integra with regard to valuation methodology of average of four Evaluators and in case of deviation of fifth Evaluator, which would be the correct process for evaluation method. This has also been affirmed in Basanth’s case stated supra . Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶511

¶512

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶513

Having heard learned Senior counsel Sri Aditya Sondhi, appearing on behalf of learned counsel for petitioners Sri A.L. Parashuram; learned Senior counsel Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri B.S. Sachin, for respondent No.1 – University and Sri N.Khetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is :–

¶514

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to two additional valuations for the subjects, in which they have been declared as unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) examination of July/August, 2022 by computing the average of two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by the four/five Evaluators?”

¶515

The subject matter of revaluation of answer scripts of various courses of examinations and postponement of examinations for whatsoever reasons and conducting of retotaling of the marks in the answer scripts has become a perennial problem across India and every year, we find huge amount of cases filed by the students of various courses seeking revaluation methodology to be changed/modified/ altered etc. Time and again, various High Courts including this

¶516

¶517

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶518

Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have in catena of judgments held that in the matters of education, the Courts should be careful in granting interim orders for the reason that it would affect the career and future of the students, as they would lose a precious year or two due to the litigation.

¶519

In the present case on hand, all the petitioners are the students of Under Graduate MBBS course of different years. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the evaluation methodology prescribed by the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 mandates evaluation by four Evaluators and further providing methodology for deviation evaluation, in case of erratic evaluation. This aspect of the matter is in agreement by all, the petitioners as well as respondents with regard to the evaluation of four Evaluators. The question i.e. raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that the average of two highest marks amongst four/five Evaluators is to be taken for computation of marks and accordingly, seeks a writ of mandamus to that effect.

¶520

This aspect of the matter with regard to whether the computation of marks has to be done by taking the two highest

¶521

¶522

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶523

marks amongst four/five Evaluators or on the basis of average of four Evaluators has been already decided by various judgments of this Court right from the case of Neelesh Mehta stated supra and thereafter in 6-7 judgments of this Court pertaining to the very same subject matter. It is no more res integra with regard to subject matter questioned in this petition of evaluation methodology of two highest marks amongst four/five Evaluators and the average of four/five Evaluators and provision for deviation evaluation. This Court in Basanth’s case stated supra , has clearly held relying on Neelesh Mehta’s case stated supra, that there cannot be disparity between the evaluation methodology of Post Graduate students and Under Graduate students on the premise that there cannot be two different standards of evaluation methodology by respondent No.1 – University. ( Underlying by me)

¶524

This Court, in Basanth’s case stated supra, has further reiterated that as per Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, even the Medical Council of India has prescribed a mandate that there shall be four examiners, out of whom, 50% shall be internal examiners, which means to say

¶525

¶526

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶527

that this Court has held time and again that the evaluation methodology has to be, as per the prescribed mandate provided by the Medical Council of India in Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, which prescribes four examiners.

¶528

It is worthwhile to extract para-29 in Basanth’s case stated supra , which reads as under:

¶529

“29. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-University that providing for four evaluations fulfills the requirement under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, and there is nothing in the said Regulations compelling the University to have a fifth valuation, cannot be accepted. The basic premise on which the previous Ordinance was struck down by the co-ordinate Bench was that there cannot be a discrimination in providing for valuation of the answer scripts of a PG student or a UG student. So long as there is provision for four evaluations and a fifth evaluation for PG students, similar provisions are required to be made use of in case of the UG students also.”

¶530

It is pursuant to this order in Basanth’s case stated supra that respondent No.1 – University in full compliance and obedience of the same, has followed the directions and

¶531

¶532

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶533

implemented the same by adopting the Regulations which was made available to the PG Students to the UG students on evaluation methodology. In a similarly situated case of Nireeksha stated supra belonging to Under Graduate course, the same issue was agitated before this Court with regard to two additional evaluation and deviation valuation in case of difference of 15% marks to be conducted strictly in compliance with Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 and even in this case, this Court relying on Neelesh Mehta’s and Basanth’s cases stated supra , dismissed petitions of the writ petitioners, who are Under Graduate students of MBBS course.

¶534

Thereafter, few of the students again approached this Court for the similar relief as sought in this petition in Rahul V.Reddy’s case , wherein this Court again by relying on Nireeksha’s case , disposed of the writ petition with a direction to comply with the direction issued in Ms.Nireeksha’s case. Again, another student approached this Court in Anusha’s case stated supra seeking for similar relief of Under Graduate course to adhere to the Regulation of 13(2) of GME Regulations, 1997 as per the order in Nireeksha’s case . The said writ petition also

¶535

¶536

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶537

came to be disposed of relying on Neelesh Mehta’s case . Thereafter, in the case of Sanjna Hedni’s case stated supra , a similar relief was sought for in the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein and this Court once again relying on the judgment of Nireeksha’s case, disposed of the writ petition to follow the directions issued therein. Thereafter, once again the students had approached this Court in the case of Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha stated supra, wherein similar relief as sought for in this writ petition was agitated. Having considered the vehement contentions of parties and relying on the previous judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the cases mentioned supra , the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners/students came to be dismissed by this Court.

¶538

In similar set of cases filed by the students aggrieved by the very same subject in issue of valuation and computation of marks of average of top two marks from amongst four/five valuators which was raised before this Court, came to be disposed of in Khushi Narayan and others vs. Rajiv Gandhi University and another [WP.No.7682/2022, Order dated

¶539

¶540

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶541

19.04.2022] following the decision in Nireeksha’s case stated supra .

¶542

In another case by similarly placed students in the case of Mr.Pradhyoth Sai Manohar and others vs. Rajiv Gandhi University and others [WP.No.19963/2021, Order dated 15.11.2021], this Court again disposed of the said writ petition in terms of Nireeksha’s case . It is relevant to mention that the said case of Nireeksha was challenged by respondent No.1 – University before the Division Bench of this Court with regard to its correctness of the order. The appeal of respondent No.1 - University came to be dismissed and further the Division Bench directed respondent No.1 – University to give effect to the order of learned Single Judge and hence, Nireeksha’s case is affirmed and not disturbed.

¶543

Learned Senior Counsel arguing in support of the petitioners, relying on the case of Renuka emphasizes the point with regard to the said judgment that where the Rules do not provide a particular thing, can the authority contend and adopt a particular method of its own choice. He further contends that Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 does not very

¶544

¶545

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶546

specifically state with regard to average of four/five valuators and when the same is silent, without any words expressed, no alternative words could be added or inserted to cause a particular change. Learned Senior Counsel further relies on para-12, which reads as under:

¶547

“12. In the absence of an express provision

¶548

as to what should happen when a certain state of things exist, it is not permissible to adopt one among several solutions, which is detrimental to the interests of the students, when other beneficial alternatives exist. As already held, the principle relied on by the Department, that it is permissible to supply words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, will apply only where the word or words to be added are the only word or words that can be added and there is an obvious omission thereof. That principle will not apply where different sets of words with different meanings can be added. To illustrate: If a section provides that a particular act is an offence and the offender shall be punished, but fails to prescribe the quantum or type of punishment, obviously it cannot be contended that the offender should be imposed the maximum punishment of life imprisonment.”

¶549

¶550

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶551

Hence, under these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel contends that the provision of revaluation is a beneficial provision inserted with the object of providing benefit to the students’ community and therefore, whenever there is any ambiguity, the same would have to be interpreted in favour of the students. It is also the case of the petitioners that the highest of best two marks is beneficial to the students and that in the case of revaluation if applied by the student, the average of two highest marks would have a moderating effect and that the highest of two marks if is in favour of the student is to be taken and in case, the same gets reduced by virtue of revaluation, then also the previous highest marks to be taken than the reduced marks secured in the revaluation. It is the further case of the petitioners that in case of erratic evaluation process, two highest marks amongst all the Evaluators be taken to protect the students against such erratic evaluation and referred to third or fifth Evaluator.

¶552

The arguments and contentions of learned Senior Counsel arguing for the petitioners, at the first blush, is very appealing and impressive, as it is intended for the benefit of the

¶553

¶554

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶555

students at large. But, however, the same will have to be mandated and sanctioned by provisions of the statute. I am in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel that in case, there is no provision in the statute or in the Regulations, then under such circumstances, the Court can consider the argument of beneficial theory in favour of the students. But, in a case where the statute provide a particular provision and mandates specifically as to how the process of valuation has to be conducted, I am afraid in such circumstances, the question of interpretation beneficial to the students contrary to the specific provision would not arise and the same is also held in Renuka’s case stated supra at para-14, which is extracted hereinbelow:

¶556

“14. In the absence of a logical meaning to the last portion of Rule 29(4), it is more appropriate to construe it in a manner, which is beneficial to the student. As pointed out above, a student applies for revaluation only when he is not satisfied with the result and feels that he got lesser than what his performance deserved. If a student feels that he has obtained more marks than expected, he will not apply for revaluation. In fact, sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 provides for revaluation of answer scripts of the “students who are not

¶557

¶558

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶559

satisfied with the valuation already done.” Hence, the provision for revaluation, is a beneficial provision intended for the benefit of the student community and should therefore be interpreted in favour of the students, if there is ambiguity. Of course, where the provision is clear, the question of interpretation in a manner beneficial to the Student, contrary to the specific provision, will not arise.”

¶560

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik lays emphasis on paras-6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of Kumari Renuka’s case stated supra , which read as under:

¶561

“6.1 There is no legal basis for such a contention. The Supreme Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION has pointed out that a student has no right other than what is provided under the Rules. The Supreme Court also held that the revaluation is a matter of policy of the State and the Examining Authority. It was further held that the courts should not examine the merits or demerits of the policy of the State and the Examining Authority. It was further held that the courts should not examine the merits or demerits of the policy that is contained in a Rule, as the

¶562

¶563

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶564

policy is not open for scrutiny, and what is open for scrutiny is the question whether the Rule falls within the scope of the Rule making power conferred by the statute. Therefore the question of students relying on any general principles relating to revaluation, does not arise. The Rules will regulate whether there should be revaluation, and if so in what circumstances revaluation should be permitted and how revaluation should be given effect, so as to achieve the objects of revaluation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the marks of revaluation can be substituted only when there is an upward revision and not otherwise, irrespective of the provisions relating to revaluation, is hereby rejected.

¶565

6.2 In LALJIT TAORI’s case, the Bombay High Court, having regard to the wording of the relevant Ordinance, held as follows:

¶566

“Revaluation is a part of examination and is a fresh appraisal of the performance of a student by other examiner….In case the marks increase, as a result of revaluation, the increase is binding on the University which is obliged to vary the result on that basis. How, then the decrease in the marks can be held not binding on the student? the result of revaluation – whatever it is – has to be accepted as correct and final by all

¶567

¶568

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶569

concerned and for all purposes. Indeed after revaluation, the result of original valuation is erased. To hold otherwise would be against the basic concept of revaluation. It is submitted that the ordinance is a beneficial piece if legislation intended for the benefit of student community and must be interpreted in its favour as far as possible. Apart from the consideration that such interpretation would be basically wrong, neither the letter nor the spirit of this ordinance leaves any scope for such interpretation…”

¶570

Though the above passage gives an impression that what is stated is a general principle regarding revaluation, it is not so. What is stated is the purport of the relevant ordinance and nothing more. The purpose and right to revaluation as also the manner and effect of revaluation, are entirely governed by the relevant Rule or ordinance and not by any general principle.

¶571

6.3. Once a student, seeks revaluation in accordance with the Rules, revaluation will be made in accordance with the Rules and the student cannot contend that the revaluation marks should be entered only if there is any upward revision and not where there is any downward revision in the marks. If the Rules provide that the student will be

¶572

¶573

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶574

entitled to the benefits of revaluation in a particular manner, then, he will be entitled to the benefits in that manner and not any other manner. If the Rules provide that the marks on revaluation shall replace the original marks, then it follows that the marks obtained on revaluation shall replace the original marks. If the Rules provide that the revaluation marks shall replace the original marks only when the difference exceeds five, then the original marks can be replaced by the revaluation marks, only if there is such difference. In other words, the matter is governed by the Rules and not by any general principle of equity.”

¶575

It is the case of learned Senior Counsel

¶576

Sri Madhusudan R.Naik that the petitioners, who are students do not have an inherent right with regard to the methodology or the process of methodology of revaluation, as the same is a policy decision to be made by the State, which vests with the State and cannot be on the whims and fancies of the students. The Rule making power conferred by the statute is the prerogative of the State.

¶577

The arguments of learned Senior Counsel on behalf of petitioners with regard to computation of two highest marks

¶578

¶579

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶580

amongst the four marks awarded by four/five evaluators, is answered in the orders rendered by several Coordinate Bench of this Court stated supra . It is also seen that in Basanth’s case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has clearly stated at para-29 with regard to the methodology of four evaluation and fifth evaluation of PG students to be adopted and followed in the case UG students as well. When this being the case, the direction to that effect having been given by this Court was followed by respondent No.1 – University, which cannot said to be tainted with illegality, arbitrariness or discrimination against the Under Graduate students. It is also necessary to lay stress on the orders passed in Basanth’s case, wherein the provisions for deviation valuation is also addressed in case of there being a difference of 15% or more in the four evaluations to the fifth evaluator. Further, it is seen that this valuation methodology is extended to all the similarly placed/situated students even without driving them to any litigation process.

¶581

Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 is in force and the same is not disturbed or altered or set aside by any Court of law. This is a Regulation of the Medical Council of India which is a Central Legislation and any Regulation made by

¶582

¶583

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶584

the State will have to be in conformity with that of the Central Legislation and cannot act contrary to the same. Therefore, the prescription and mandate provided in Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 is clear and unambiguous with regard to four examiners out of whom two being the internal and two external examiners. This aspect of the Regulation has been upheld to be followed in the cases of Neelesh Mehta, Basanth, Nireeksha and other cases stated supra by this Court time and again. This Court is of the opinion that any Legislation or provisions included in the statute is the domain vested with the State and the Medical Council of India being a statutory body interested in the academic welfare of the society at large, in its wisdom has enacted the Policy by incorporating the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, which cannot be faulted.

¶585

In this background, if the whole case of the petitioners is summarized it is seen that at the instance of the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation the methodology of four plus one evaluation was introduced providing the benefit of deviation evaluation in case of erratic evaluation by four Evaluators to the fifth Evaluator. It is at the instance of the

¶586

¶587

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶588

petitioners, who had sought for four/five Evaluators, the same was allowed. Now at the whims and fancies of the petitioners, who are unsuccessful, the same cannot be reversed to the methodology of two highest marks amongst four Evaluators. This would in turn mean turning the clock backwards and putting the cart before the horse, which is not permissible.

¶589

This Court is of the opinion that there is no arbitrariness, illegality or discrimination as against the petitioners-students by invoking the methodology of four/five Evaluators in consonance to Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, so also, which is affirmed by an order of writ of mandamus issued by this Court in Basanth’s case stated supra . The petitioners having availed the benefit in their favour of the four/five Evaluators addressing the deviation valuation in case of erratic evaluation now cannot contend that there is discrimination against them.

¶590

In view of specific provisions governing the MCI, i.e., Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, and the orders passed in Basanth’s case stated supra , I do not find any illegality to exercise the theory of beneficial discretion to the

¶591

¶592

WP No. 18832 of 2022

¶593

students as the same would run contrary to the existing Regulation of the Medical Council of India.

¶594

It is also submitted across the Bar that respondent No.1 - University following the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 and the order in Basanth’s case stated supra has evaluated the answer scripts of the unsuccessful students and has declared the results by using the methodology of average of four/five Evaluators also addressing the erratic evaluation by way of deviation valuation of the fifth Evaluator in case of difference of more than 15% marks by the four Evaluators. The results have been declared and the same is made known to the students. It is also stated across the Bar that initially, the next semester examination was scheduled to be conducted on 23^rd January 2023, which came to be postponed to 3^rd February 2023, thereby providing ten days time from the previous scheduled date of examination and the results were declared and made known to the petitioners/ students 14 days prior to the next date of exam.

¶595