Allowed¶81

The Registrar (Evaluation) v. Karthik Vijayakrishna

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2025WA/415/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences; RGUHS; MBBS RS3 batch; two additional valuations; revaluation; average of two highest marks; four/five evaluators; deviation valuation; fifth evaluator; Regulation 13(2) GME Regulations 1997; Basanth's case; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961; W.P.No.19796/2022; W.P.No.18832/2022; W.A.No.57/2023; education dispute; valuation methodology; Karnataka High Court Division Bench; writ appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; judgment dated 29.09.2022 in W.P.No.19796/2022 (EDN-RES) set aside and the writ petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, closed. ¶81

The Registrar (Evaluation) Vs Karthik Vijayakrishna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; judgment dated 29.09.2022 in W.P.No.19796/2022 (EDN-RES) set aside and the writ petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, closed.

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 29.09.2022 in W.P.No.19796/2022 (EDN-RES), directing the University to conduct two additional valuations for subjects in which the petitioner-students were declared unsuccessful and to declare fresh results by computing the average of the two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by all valuators, should be sustained or set aside. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

The writ appeal is allowed; the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.19796/2022 (EDN-RES) is set aside and W.P.No.19796/2022 shall stand dismissed.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

The Division Bench found that the question decided in W.P.No.18832/2022 was identical to the issue raised in this writ appeal and that all relevant aspects had been correctly considered by the learned Single Judge therein; consequently, the same reasoning should be followed in the instant case.

¶80

Key takeaways

Since the matters are identical, the reasoning adopted in W.P.No.18832/2022 (upholding the four/five-evaluator methodology and dismissing the petition) governs this appeal as well.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.A. No.415/2023 (EDN-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 21.11.2025 (coram: Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.; judgment per Anu Sivaraman J.). The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 29.09.2022 in W.P.No.19796/2022, which had directed two additional valuations for the subjects in which the 13 student-petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the MBBS (RS3) July/August 2022 examination and fresh results averaging the two highest marks amongst all valuators. Holding the question identical to that decided in W.P.No.18832/2022 — where, after remand pursuant to W.A.No.57/2023 (judgment dated 27.01.2023), the learned Single Judge by order dated 01.02.2023 upheld the four/five-evaluator methodology under Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 read with the mandamus in 'Basanth's case' and dismissed the petition — this Court held that all relevant aspects had been correctly considered therein and that the same reasoning should be followed. The writ appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 29.09.2022 was set aside, W.P.No.19796/2022 stood dismissed, and pending applications were closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.415/2023 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶11

THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶12

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S. ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARTHIK VIJAYAKRISHNA S/O VIJAYAN .R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS STUDENT OF AJ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES R/A 803, MARIAN GARDENS ANEGUNDI ROAD

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BEJAI, MANGALURU-575004 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 12M7560.

¶21

AYSHA ZUHA D/O ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS STUDENT OF AJ INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES MANGALURU R/A FLAT NO.905 ESSEL HEIGHTS BAJPE MAIN ROAD DEREBAIL, MANGALURU-575006 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 14M7533.

¶22

EMIL RAJU S/O RAJU VARGHESE STUDENT OF AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A EMIL RAJU SHREE LAKSHMI NIVAS VIJAY COLONY, SENANAGAR OPPOSITE AL AMEEN HOSPITAL ATANI ROAD, BIJAPUR-586108 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 15M2678.

¶23

R. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O T. RAJAN STUDENT OF AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT. PUNIT NILAYA PLOT NO.38E-2 SENA NAGAR OPP AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE VIJAYAPUR-586108 BEHIN GLPS NO.61 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 15M 2713.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

DEEPTHI M.G. D/O M.S. GOPAL STUDENT OF ESIC MEDICAL COLLEGE RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-10 AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A NO.587, SUMEDHA, 3RD BLOCK VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT ULLAL, BENGALURU-560056 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 15M8119.

¶27

SHAIK MUZAKEER S/O SHAIK RABBANI STUDENT OF MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A DO/NO.20/4/339 MECLIANCE ROAD KOTAMITTA, NELLORE, AP 524001 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 13M 3362.

¶28

ABDULLA .M S/O SHAHUL HAMEED STUDENT OF ALAMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE BIJAPUR, VIJAYAPURA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A 3/2, PUDUR VANDI PATHI ATHIKULUM K PUDUR, MADURAI-7 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 15M2652.

¶29

RITHIN R.J. S/O RAJASHEKAR B.J. STUDENT OF KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A NO.3418, 4TH PHASE BSK 3RD STAGE GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-85 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NUMBER 180619.

¶33

RAKSHAK K.A. S/O ASHOK KUMAR K.R. STUDENT OF SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A SAPTHAGIRI BYS HOSTEL UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 16M0850.

¶34

V. RICHARD STEPHEN S/O VELLADURAI RASAMANI STUDENT OF SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL TUMKUR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A EMMANUEL HEIGHTS APT AMRITHA NAGAR CHOODASADNRA HOSA ROAD BENGALURU-560099 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 17M4501.

¶35

AMRUTH RAI .M S/O UMANANDA RAI STUDENT OF KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BANGALORE AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/A NO.205/A, 17TH D CROSS 3RD BLOCK, 4TH STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGARA BANGALORE-560079 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 18M3496.

¶36

KURUBA SHOBHA D/O SIDDAPPA

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

STUDENT OF SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL, TUMKUR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 14M8539.

¶40

S. DHARSHINI D/O M. SUBASH STUDENT OF MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL HOSKOTE AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/A NO.47, VINAYAKA ENCLAVE I IST CROSS, KEREGUDDADAHALLI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560090 UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 18M0848.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S, ADV., FOR R1)

¶43

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2022 IN WP No.19796/2022. PASS ANY ORDER OR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶44

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶51

This writ appeal is filed by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences against the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19796/2022 (EDN-RES), wherein the learned Single Judge had directed the University to conduct two additional valuations in respect of the subjects, in which

¶52

the petitioners-students have been declared to be unsuccessful and also to declare fresh results taking into account and computing the average of two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by all the valuators.

¶53

We have heard Sri.Sachin B.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellants-University as well as Sri.Trivikram S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Student.

¶54

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-University that the students in this case belong

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

to RS3 batch and are covered by the RS3 scheme. It is submitted that in an identical writ petition i.e., W.P.No.18832/2022, filed by other students belonging to the very same batch, the learned Single Judge had considered the issue and by judgment dated 22.09.2022, had directed to conduct two additional valuations as has been done in the instant case. The said order was taken in appeal by the University in W.A.No.57/2023 and by the judgment dated 27.01.2023, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for a consideration. Thereafter, the matter was heard at length and the learned Single Judge by order dated 01.02.2023 had considered the issue and had framed the question for consideration as under:

¶58

“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?”

¶59

The learned Single Judge, after considering all

¶60

the contentions advanced, has held as under:

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

"52. 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 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.

¶65

53. 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.

¶66

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

¶67

55. 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

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

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 23rd January 2023, which came to be postponed to 3rd 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.

¶72

56. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

The writ petition is dismissed ."

¶75

Learned counsel for the appellants-University

¶76

submits that the students in the instant case also belong to the RS3 batch and that the matter is identical in all respects to the question decided in W.P.No.18832/2022. The learned counsel for the respondent-students submits that he was unable to contact the respondents herein.

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:48165-DB W.A. No.415/2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Having considered the contentions advanced

¶80

and in view of the fact that the question decided in W.P.No.18832/2022 was identical to the issue raised here. We have proceeded to consider the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition. We notice that all relevant aspects have been correctly considered by the learned Single Judge therein. We, therefore, are of the opinion that since the matters are identical, the same reasoning should be followed in the instant case as well.

¶81

In the above view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.19796/2022 (EDN-RES) is set aside and W.P.No.19796/2022 shall stand dismissed.

¶82

Pending applications, if any, stand closed.

¶83

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶85

BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

The Registrar (Evaluation) v. Karthik Vijayakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar (Evaluation) v. Karthik Vijayakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gopalappa B Vs K B Bette Gowda

National Highways Authority of Inida Vs Sri. Sudharshan Kumar

The Karnataka Examinations Authority Vs Mr Ashwani Kumar Manjhi

Gowramma Vs the SLAO-2

S Bharathi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Venkataramane Gowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer