Dr G Indu Varshini Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.22991 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS. 4152/2025, 6896/2025, 10010/2025, 10022/2025, 10229/2025, 10240/2025, 10244/2025, 10270/2025, 10390/2025, 12793/2025, 19224/2025, 20228/2025, 20248/2025, 21101/2025, 21401/2025, 22957/2025, 23004/2025, 23086/2025, 23088/2025, 23165/2025

¶7

IN WP 22991/2025

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

DR G INDU VARSHINI D/O ANJANEYA PRASAD, AGE 28 YEARS, UNI REG NO. 21MG407, NO. 10-3-68/3 VENKATA TULSI TOWERS, FLAT NO. 103, KHAMMAM (URBAN) TELANGANA 507001

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 041.

¶14

REP BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶15

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD,

¶16

POCKET 14, SECTOR 8,

¶17

-2-

¶18

DWARAKA PHASE I, NEW DELHI 11007 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

&&RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA G KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. N. KHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. GENERAL MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶22

IN WP 4152/2025

¶23

BETWEEN

¶24

DR ASHAKIRAN D/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, C/O VISHAL, H. NO-18, 11 TH CROSS, PARVATHIPURA, RAJANKUNTE, BENGALURU 560064.

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SMT.HIREMATH AKKAMAHADEVI., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND

¶28

1 . THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE (RGUHS), 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041.

¶29

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET NO 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA,

¶30

-3-

¶31

NEW DEHI 110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶32

&RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. N. KHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONDUCT REVALUATION BY A THIRD EVALUTOR OF THE PETITIONERS ANSWERSCRIPTS IN THEORY PAPERS 1 AND 2 (PATHOLOGY 1 AND 2) PRODUCED AS ANNX-B1 AND B2 AND ETC.

¶35

IN WP 6896/2025

¶36

BETWEEN

¶37

1 . DR. MEENU ROY D/O SOHIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT AGARPUR, LALGANJ, VAISHALI, BIHAR 3 844 121

¶38

2 . DR. ANURADHA S. D/O SIDDAPPA B. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT ROOM NO 325, SARAYU HOSTEL, SSIMS AND RC, JNANA SANGAMA NH-4, DAVANGERE 3 577 005

¶39

...PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND

¶42

1 . THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE (RGUHS), 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 3 560 041.

¶43

-4-

¶44

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET NO. 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA, NEW DEHI 3 110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶45

&..RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B. S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶47

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT THE REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONERS BY EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO SITUATION WHEREVER THE DIFFERENCE OF MARKS AWARDED BY THE VALUATORS IS MORE THAN EQUAL TO 15 PERCENT AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE TOTAL MARKS PRESCRIBED TO THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AT THE HANDS OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 31335/2019 DATED 10/08/2020 SINCE AFFIRMED IN W A NO. 771/2021 DATED 12/08/2021 21 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ANNEXURE-J.

¶48

IN WP 10010/2025

¶49

BETWEEN

¶50

DR. ARUSHI SONI, D/O DR. DILIP SONI, AGED 30 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO. 21ME308, R/O BAGDIYA GOVT. HOSPITAL, SAJANGARH, CHARU, RAJASTHAN 3 331 507.

¶51

...PETITIONER

¶52

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND

¶54

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶55

-5-

¶56

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶57

&&RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶59

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶60

IN WP 10022/2025

¶61

BETWEEN

¶62

DR. PRADYOTHA SUMAN, D/O K. C. MALLA NAIK, AGED 27 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO. 21ME269, R/O NO.449, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, R. R. NAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 098.

¶63

...PETITIONER

¶64

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND

¶66

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶67

-6-

¶68

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶69

&.RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶71

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶72

IN WP 10229/2025

¶73

BETWEEN

¶74

DR. ROHAN BHAT S/O MR. MULKI VIVEKANANDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO 21MY204, R/O FLAT 504, VAISHNAVI APARTMENTS, ASRP ROAD, DONGERKERY, MANGALORE 3 575 003.

¶75

...PETITIONER

¶76

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶77

AND

¶78

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶79

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I,

¶80

-7-

¶81

NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶82

&&RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶84

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. PATHOLOGY OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶85

IN WP 10240/2025

¶86

BETWEEN

¶87

DR. NABHAY GANGADHRASWAMY S/O DR. GANGADHRASWAMY, AGED 33 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO. 21YT242, R/O NO.135/136, 1^ST A MAIN, WOC ROAD, 2^ND STAGE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU 3 560 086.

¶88

...PETITIONER

¶89

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶90

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶91

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶92

-8-

¶93

&..RESPONDENTS

¶94

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶95

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.S. ORTHOPAEDICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶96

IN WP 10244/2025

¶97

BETWEEN

¶98

DR. PYATA DINESH REDDY S/O MR. PAYATA MAHIPAL REDDY AGED 30 YEARS UNI REG. NO 20ME065 R/O VILLA 15, POULOMI RISTOS LANE 4 KOKAPET, K. V. RANGAREDDY, TELANAGANA 3 500 075

¶99

...PETITIONER

¶100

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶101

AND

¶102

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 3 560 041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶103

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE NEW DELHI 3 110 077

-9-

BY ITS SECRETARY

&&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶108

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶109

IN WP 10270/2025

¶110

BETWEEN

¶111

DR. DEBALINA SARKAR, D/O MR. PRABAL KUMAR SARKAR, AGED 31 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO. 21MG346, R/O NO.52B, HINDUSTHAN PARK, SARAT BOASE ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL 3 700 029.

¶112

...PETITIONER

¶113

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶114

AND

¶115

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶116

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶117

&..RESPONDENTS

¶118

-10-

¶119

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶120

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. GENERAL MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTH VALUATION OF THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶121

IN WP 10390/2025

¶122

BETWEEN

¶123

DR BHARATH N., S/O MR. L. NARAYAN, AGED 28 YEARS, UNI. REG.NO. 21MG216, R/O NO.134 AND 136, LAKSHMIPATHY GARDEN, HBR 1^ST BLOCK, 2^ND CROSS, SUBASH LAYOUT, BENGALURU 3 560 043.

¶124

...PETITIONER

¶125

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶126

AND

¶127

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶128

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶129

&&.RESPONDENTS

¶130

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶131

-11-

¶132

SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶133

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. GENERAL MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT FIFTY VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER.

¶134

IN WP 12793/2025

¶135

BETWEEN

¶136

DR. SMITA KABBUR D/O SHANKAR KABBUR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO. 822/A, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, CONTOUR ROAD, GOKULAM, MYSORE 3 570 002

¶137

...PETITIONER

¶138

(BY SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶139

AND

¶140

1 . THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE (RGUHS), 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 3 560 041.

¶141

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET NO 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA, NEW DEHI 3 110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶142

&..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶143

-12-

¶144

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO CONDUCT REVALUATION OF THE PETITIONERS ANSWER - SCRIPTS IN THEORY PAPERS 1, 2 AND 4 (PATHOLOGY 1, 2 AND 4) BY A THIRD EVALUATOR THE COPY WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-B1, B2, B3 AND B4 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶145

IN WP 19224/2025

¶146

BETWEEN

¶147

DR. VYSHAK S., S/O DR. S. SURESH., AGED 32 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO. 20MG074, R/O HALKURKE ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND LANE, GOVINDPURA, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU 3 572 201.

¶148

...PETITIONER

¶149

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶150

AND

¶151

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶152

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶153

&..RESPONDENTS

¶154

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶155

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M. D. GENERAL MEDICINE OF THE POST GRADUATE

¶156

-13-

¶157

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF MAY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15PERCENTAGE MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER, TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY.

¶158

IN WP 20228/2025

¶159

BETWEEN

¶160

DR. AVNEESH LEEKHA, S/O NARESH KUMAR LEEKHA, AGE 30 YEARS UNI REG NO. 21YE191 NO. 29, LIVSTONIA III, PALM GROVES CO-OP HSG SOCIETY, B T KAWADE ROAD, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA 3 411 036.

¶161

...PETITIONER

¶162

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶163

AND

¶164

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶165

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶166

&..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶167

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF

¶168

-14-

¶169

THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FALLED SUBJECTS OF M.S. E.N.T. OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER, TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶170

IN WP 20248/2025

¶171

BETWEEN

¶172

DR. NEUSHREE PANI, D/O NRUSINGHA PANI, AGE 30 YEARS, UNI REG NO. 21ME302. R/O FLAT NO. 301, JAGANNATH BHAVAN, SURYA NAGAR BHUBANESHWAR, KHORDA DISTRICT, ODISHA 3 751 003.

¶173

...PETITIONER

¶174

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶175

AND

¶176

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶177

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET 14, SECTOR 8,

¶178

DWARAKA PHASE I NEW DELHI 3 110 077. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶179

&&.RESPONDENTS

¶180

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶181

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO

¶182

-15-

¶183

ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF 'M.D. PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENTAGE MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶184

IN WP 21101/2025

¶185

BETWEEN

¶186

DR. KAUSHIK D. S. S/O DEMAPPA, AGED 29 YEARS 119, 1^ST CROSS, NIVEDITHA NAGAR MYSORE 3 570 022

¶187

...PETITIONER

¶188

(BY SRI.NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶189

AND

¶190

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 3 560 0041. REP. BY REGISTRAR

¶191

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 3 110 077

¶192

&&.RESPONDENTS

¶193

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶194

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MD OPHTHALMOLOGY OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH

¶195

-16-

¶196

VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15PERCENTAGE MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶197

IN WP 21401/2025

¶198

BETWEEN

¶199

DR KIRTHI KIRAN S/O K SAMPATH AGED 35 YEARS R/AT # 36, MADHU NIVAS, 33^RD MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, OPP. SANDHYA THEATER, MADIVALA, BTM-LAYOUT 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE 3 560 068

¶200

...PETITIONER

¶201

(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶202

AND

¶203

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 3 560 041. REP. BY REGISTRAR

¶204

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 3 110 077 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶205

&..RESPONDENTS

¶206

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶207

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MS OTO- RHINO-LARYNGOL OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025

¶208

-17-

¶209

UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶210

IN WP 22957/2025

¶211

BETWEEN

¶212

DR. KAVURI SRI HARSHA S/O. KAVURI KRISHNA RAO AGED 30 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF H.NO.1-13404/B/1/101 MAYER STREET, NIZAMABAD NEAR RAGHAVA HIGH SCHOOL ANDHRA PRADESH 3 503 001.

¶213

AT PRESENT R/A PG HOSTEL, KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE, MANGALORE 3 575 018.

¶214

...PETITIONER

¶215

(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶216

AND

¶217

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 3 560 041. REP. BY REGISTRAR

¶218

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 3 110 077 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶219

&..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶220

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER

¶221

-18-

¶222

OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MD PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶223

IN WP 23004/2025

¶224

BETWEEN

¶225

DR. ATHUL SURESH S/O CK SURESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT PG HOSTEL, AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANGALORE 3 575 004

¶226

...PETITIONER

¶227

(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶228

AND

¶229

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 3 560 041

¶230

REP. BY REGISTRAR

¶231

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 3 110 077 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶232

&&..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶233

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M

¶234

-19-

¶235

D PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY.

¶236

IN WP 23086/2025

¶237

BETWEEN

¶238

DR. MANGUKIYA AXAY KANTILAL S/O MANGUKIYA KANTILALA CHHAGANLAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AT PRESENT R/A ROOM NO. D1 SKP RESIDENCY, NO. 25, GJM IT GARDENS, MALLURAHALLI 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NALLURHALLI, KR PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU 3 560 066.

¶239

...PETITIONER

¶240

(BY SRI.NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶241

AND

¶242

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 3 560 041. REP. BY REGISTRAR.

¶243

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL POCKET NO. 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 3 110 077. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶244

&..RESPONDENTS

¶245

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶246

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF

¶247

-20-

¶248

THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF MS OTO- RHINO-LARYNGOL OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶249

IN WP 23088/2025

¶250

BETWEEN

¶251

DR.K. SREE LAXMI D/O K. AMARA LINGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A KVG MEDICAL PG GIRLS HOSTEL, COURT ROAD, KURANJIBHAG, SULIYA, DAKSHINA KANNADA 3 574 327

¶252

...PETITIONER

¶253

(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

¶254

AND

¶255

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 3 560 041. REP. BY REGISTRAR.

¶256

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL POCKET NO. 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 3 110 077, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶257

&&RESPONDENTS

¶258

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶259

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OFF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF

¶260

-21-

¶261

MD PAEDIATRICS OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF JANUARY 2025 UNDERTAKER BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶262

IN WP 23165/2025

¶263

BETWEEN

¶264

DR SAKSHI BHUWANIA D/O MR. MANOJ KUMAR BHUWANIA, AGE 30 YEARS, UNI. REG.NO. 21MD 184 R/O BELPAHAR, AZAD CHOWK, JHARSUGUDA, ODISHA 3 768 217

¶265

...PETITIONER

¶266

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶267

AND

¶268

1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 3 560 041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶269

2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE- I, NEW DELHI 3 110 077 BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶270

&&RESPONDENTS

¶271

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MAMATHA G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶272

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR CONDUCT OF TWO

¶273

-22-

¶274

ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF THE THEORY ANSWERS SCRIPTS OF THE FAILED SUBJECTS OF M.D. DERMATOLOGY OF THE POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF MAY 2025 UNDERTAKE BY THE PETITIONER AND TO CONDUCT 5TH VALUATION ON THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE OF 15 PERCENT MARKS BETWEEN THE 4 EXAMINERS, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH THEREAFTER TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC.

¶275

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶276

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶277

CAV COMMON ORDER

¶278

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

¶279

This is the perennial problem of failed students, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to conduct two additional valuations of the theory answer scripts of the failed subjects.

¶280

The petitioners are Post Graduate medical students who took up the examinations during January 2025. It is their contention that the Ordinance of 2019 mandates evaluation of the answer scripts by four evaluators and if the deviation of marks between the evaluators is more than 15%, the answer scripts should be evaluated by a fifth evaluator. However, the National Medical Commission

¶281

-23-

¶282

notified the 8Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 20239 on 29.12.2023, bringing the provisions of the new Regulations into force from the date of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette.

¶283

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, appearing for some of the petitioners contended that although the repeal and savings clause expressly repealed the 8Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 20009, nevertheless, there was some confusion regarding the applicability of the new Regulations to those students who were admitted to the course much earlier and therefore, a clarification was issued by the respondent-National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred to as 8the NMC9 for short) by way of a public notice dated 10.04.2024 at Annexure 8E9 in W.P.No.22991/2025, along with the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). It is submitted that although the position regarding the old batch students is not clear in the new Regulations, nevertheless, while answering Question No.6 i.e., 8How will dissertations be evaluated, and what is the process for viva voce examination?9, along with the answer to the said question, it was also stated that the new

¶284

-24-

¶285

Regulations will be applicable for all those students appearing in the forthcoming post-graduate examination. However, it is also a fact that the NMC issued a public notice on 07.08.2024 requesting all the Universities to complete the academic curriculum including conducting of final examination by 31.12.2024 of PG Board Specialty Degree students who had taken admission in the Academic Year 2021. Representations were however received by the NMC from few Universities to postpone the deadline and accordingly, the Universities were asked to complete the examinations by 31^st of January 2025.

¶286

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the intention behind the completion of the examinations of the students who were admitted in the academic year 2021 was to ensure that the old Regulations would be followed in their case. This is further fortified by the notification dated 16.12.2024 at Annexure 8F9 issued by the respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 8RGUHS9 for short) clearly stating that since the students were admitted during 2021-22, the University had decided

¶287

-25-

¶288

that the examination pattern will remain as it is and it will not be as per the new Regulations, 2023.

¶289

Learned Senior Counsel submits that when it is expressly notified by the RGUHS that the examination pattern will remain as it is, which would mean that the pattern shall be in terms of the old Regulations, it would imply that the evaluations too should be done in terms of the old Regulations. The RGUHS should not be permitted to pick and choose between the two Regulations. It is submitted that though the new Regulations, 2023, prescribed a different pattern of examination, the same is given a go-by, but evaluation is sought to be done in terms of the new Regulations. The new Regulations prescribe in Regulation 8.4(b) that all the answer scripts shall be subjected for two evaluations by the concerned University. The average of the total marks awarded by the two evaluators for the paper, shall be considered for computation of the results. All the answer scripts, where the difference between two evaluations is between 15% and more of the total marks prescribed for the paper, shall be subjected to third valuation. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the RGUHS

¶290

-26-

¶291

has erred in restricting the evaluation at the hands of two examiners, whence the examination pattern of the old Regulations are followed. It is pointed out that at Regulation 8.3 where methodology is provided in the new Regulations, 2023, it is prescribed that the theory examination may consist of descriptive answer of a question type, Multiple Choice Question or mix of both types. Since there is a change in the methodology, the NMC prescribes evaluation at the hands of two examiners. However, since the methodology under the old Regulations were different, the NMC had prescribed four evaluations. The RGUHS has erred in retaining the old methodology or pattern and conducting evaluation at the hands of two examiners.

¶292

Reliance is placed on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench at Kalaburagi Bench in the case of Almas Kausar and Others Vs. RGUHS and Another in W.P.No.201553/2024 dated 30.07.2024, where an alternative prayer was made by the petitioners of the Undergraduate MBBS course (RS3) that direction may be issued to the RGUHS to extend the same scheme of valuation applicable to RS4 scheme and also uniform

¶293

-27-

¶294

application of valuation scheme and to undertake evaluation at the hands of two examiners, as was prescribed for RS4 scheme. However, the co-ordinate Bench held that the distinction made between the two schemes was in furtherance of a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.57/2023. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the decision of the Division Bench which considered an intraCourt appeal of the same case in W.P.No.201553/2024 ( Almas Kausar ), which upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, while noticing the fact that the amendment notification dated 04.11.2019 made a distinction between RS3 and RS4 batches and accordingly provided for different schemes of evaluation. However, it is submitted that in the new Regulations, 2023, no such distinction is made between the 2021-22 and the subsequent batches. The new Regulations were required to be followed in all the batches, but the RGUHS has followed different methodology of evaluation insofar as the 2021-22 batch is concerned, by evaluation at the hands of two examiners only, contrary to the new Regulations.

¶295

-28-

¶296

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol,

¶297

appearing for the respondent-RGUHS submitted that the University had very clearly informed all the stakeholders, through its notification dated 16.12.2024 that as the students were admitted during 2021-22, the University decided that the examination pattern will remain in terms of the old Regulations. This was not questioned by the petitioners. It is submitted that as the petitioners did not question the said notification dated 16.12.2024, they should not be permitted to agitate the issue after writing the examination and after receiving the results. Learned Senior Counsel submits that 2859 PG students appeared for the examinations during January 2025, out of which 2579 students passed in the examination, making the result of 90.21%. Only 277 students failed. In the May 2025 supplementary examinations, 271 students took up the examination and 221 were declared successful. 50 students have failed. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit, that the statistics and the results would show that the benefit of the new Regulations in providing for evaluation at the hands of two examiners have been more beneficial to the

¶298

-29-

¶299

students. Moreover, whatever methodology apply, whether it is evaluation at the hands of two examiners or four examiners, some students may fail. Therefore, the result of failure cannot be attributed to the number of examiners. Even otherwise, the NMC and its experts have found from past experience that evaluation at the hands of two examiners are more beneficial to the students and therefore, the new Regulations prescribe evaluation of the answer scripts at the hands of two examiners.

¶300

Learned Counsel Sri N.Khetty, appearing for the respondent-NMC submitted that the RGUHS kept the NMC informed of its decision to follow the old scheme of question paper insofar as the students of 2021-22 batch are concerned and that they will follow the new pattern of evaluation at the hands of two examiners. It is submitted that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the RGUHS is right in his submission that the NMC and its experts have found that evaluation at the hands of two examiners are more beneficial to the students and therefore, the NMC has now prescribed, in its new Regulations, 2023, evaluation at the hands of two examiners. It is submitted that the RGUHS

¶301

-30-

¶302

has given the benefit of best of both to the students of 202122, inasmuch as following the old pattern of question paper and new pattern of evaluation.

¶303

Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, Sri Pradeep Patil and Sri Nataraj G., learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-RGUHS and Sri N.Khetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent-NMC and perused the petition papers.

¶304

It would be apposite to extract the observations of the Division Bench in the case of Almas Kausar and Others Vs. RGUHS and Another in W.A.No.200176/2024, which is as follows:

¶305

< 11. We are constrained to observe that the methodology of evaluation of the theory answer scripts has fallen for consideration at the hands of this Court, all at the instance of the students of RS-3 batch. Initially, in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta and Ors. Vs. RGUHS and another, in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters dated 10.08.2020 and Basant K.B. Vs. RGUHS and another, in W.P. No.231/2021 and connected matters dated 11.02.2021, the students were successful and this Court held that evaluation at the hands of two evaluators was contrary to Regulation 13(2) of the MCI-GME Regulations, 1997. Directions

¶306

-31-

¶307

were issued to the RGUHS to conduct evaluation at the hands of two more evaluators and thereafter provide for deviation evaluation in case of erratic evaluation where the difference of marks was more than 15% of the total marks prescribed for the paper. Such directions were issued only in respect of failed papers. What we find thereafter is constant complaints at the hands of the failed students. If evaluation is done at the hands of two evaluators, which apparently gives better results for the students, even then petitions are filed by the failed students contending that such evaluation will be contrary to Regulation 13(2). If evaluation is done at the hands of four evaluators, the failed students would file petitions contending that the benefit of evaluation at the hands of two evaluators given to all other students, except the batch of RS-3, would be arbitrary and therefore they would seek evaluation at the hands of four evaluators. We should therefore say that much indulgence has been shown by this Court, being carried away by misplaced sympathy, to protect the interest of the students. We cannot lose sight of the fact that at our directions, the respondent 3 RGUHS has been forced to conduct reevaluation of failed papers, in a different manner, than what was actually followed in respect of the passed papers.=

¶308

This Court need not go any further, since it is clear that the respondent-RGUHS has given the benefit of best of both to the students admitted in the year 2021-22. The Division Bench has rightly observed that at the whims and

¶309

-32-

¶310

fancies of the petitioners who are unsuccessful, the methodology cannot be reversed or varied. Such action would amount to turning the clock backwards and putting the cart before the horse which is not permissible. It was observed by the Division Bench that there is a strong tendency of the students to some how pass the examination, sometimes nit-picking on provisions regarding method of evaluation, sometimes seeking right of re-evaluation and/or seeking to tailor the results to suit the petitioners and ensure that they pass in the examinations, which would be a matter of great concern, as petitioners are pursuing course in medicine and would be dealing with the lives of people.

¶311

For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed .

¶312

Pending I.As., stand disposed of accordingly.

¶313

Sd/(R. DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶314

JT/CT:JL

Dr G Indu Varshini v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr G Indu Varshini v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kanthamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mayanna Gowda H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Haniff Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K. C. Manjunath Vs the Asst. Commissioner

Sri R Somashekara Reddy, Vs the State of Karnataka