Dismissed¶97

Meghana as v. National Commission for Indian System of Medicine

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2025WP/30403/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BAMS Phase 1 RS7 July 2024 examination; NCISM double valuation system under MSE Regulation 2022; no right to revaluation absent regulatory provision; Article 14/21 challenge to double valuation rejected; third valuation only on 20% or greater variance; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus presupposes a judicially enforceable legal right; the Regulation prescribed a double valuation system only, and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed since there can be no mandamus without such a right. ¶93

Meghana as Vs National Commission for Indian… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether, in the absence of a revaluation provision in the Regulation prescribed by NCISM, the petitioner is entitled to revaluation as contended in the writ petition? +1 more

¶61

Court's answer

¶93

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any provision for revaluation in the relevant rules, no candidate has a right to claim revaluation; the petitioners are not entitled to revaluation as the regulations and rules do not permit it.

¶96

Key takeaways

The double valuation system in medical examinations is justified and cannot be said to be discriminatory or in violation of Article 14; the writ court does not opine on what is good or bad in academic matters and may interfere only on violation of a fundamental right.ratio¶93
Third valuation arises only where the difference between the first and second valuations exceeds 20% of the marks card; the petitioner made out no case of discrimination among the class of students.ratio¶90

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (K.S. Hemalekha J.) dismissed a writ petition by a first-year BAMS student seeking revaluation of her Sanskrit, Padartha, Rachana and Samhitha papers of the Phase 1 (RS7) July 2024 examination and quashing of NCISM's double-valuation rules. Held: (i) mandamus requires a judicially enforceable legal right, and the NCISM/MSE Regulation 2022 prescribes only double valuation with no revaluation provision, so no candidate has a right to claim revaluation (relying on Mani Subrath Jain, Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Ranvijay Singh); (ii) third valuation is triggered only where the two valuations differ by 20% or more of the maximum marks, and the petitioner showed no discrimination among students; (iii) the double valuation system in medical examinations is neither discriminatory nor violative of Articles 14 and 21, academic matters being best left to academics. Certiorari prayers against Annexure-B (dated 16.02.2022) and Annexure-C (dated 27.07.2022) were dismissed as not pressed. Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 30403 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MEGHANA AS D/O SURESHA N., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT DCF OFFICE, KOPPA, PO: KOPPA, SUB DIST: KOPPA, DIST: CHIKMAGALUR, PIN CODE-577 126

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHIRANJEEVI K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN Digitally signed by SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, MAHALAKSHMI B M PLOT NO.T-19, 1^ST AND 2^ND FLOOR, Location: HIGH COURT OF BLOCK IV, KARNATAKA DHANWANARI BHAWAN, ROAD NO. 66, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST), NEW DELHI-110 026 DELHI INDIA.

¶13

REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶16

BENGALURU-560 041.

¶17

VICE CHANCELLOR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041

¶18

ADHICHUNCHANGIRI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE (AAMC) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND DEAN NO.112, BGS VIJATHAM SOUTH CAMPUS, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-23

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; R4 IS UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE FOR REVALUATION OPPORTUNITY IN THE SUBJECT OF SANSKRIT, PADARTHA, RACHANA AND SAMHITHA OF PHASE 1 OF B.A.M.S(RS7) EXAMINATION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:

¶27

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to provide for Revaluation Opportunity in the subject of Sanskrit, Padartha, Rachana and Samhitha of Phase 1 of B.A.M.S (RS7) Examination.

¶28

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the rule No.11(a), 11(b) and 11(c) of the Annexure-B passed by the respondent No.1 bearing F.No.BoA/Regulation/UG-7-10/2021 dated 16.02.2022.

¶29

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Annexure-C passed by the respondent No.1 dated 27.07.2022 bearing BOA/Regulation/UG/10(3)/22 directing the respondent University to conduct fresh evaluation of the failed subjects of the B.A.M.S Phase 1 RS7 Examinations of July 2024 undertaken by the petitioner by subjecting the answer scripts to two valuations an to conduct 3^rd valuation of there being a deviation of 20%

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶31

marks between the examiners and thereafter to announce the results afresh by considering the highest marks for the computation of the results.

¶32

(d) Such other order / direction as this Hon'ble court demes fit in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs."

¶33

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press prayer Nos.(b) and (c).

¶34

Accordingly, prayer Nos.(b) and (c) is dismissed as not pressed.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶36

The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at Adhichunchanagiri Ayurvedic Medical College,

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶38

Bangalore affiliated with Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) and governed by the National Commission for Independent System of Medicine (NCISM). The petitioner appeared for the first year examination in July, 2024, the NCISM issued a notification regarding the evaluation procedure including a double valuation system for B.A.M.S examination.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner is that

¶40

despite securing passing marks in the first valuation, the petitioner was awarded lesser marks in the second valuation, which resulted in failure in four subjects. According to the petitioner, the guidelines under Annexure-B create an unjust outcome and if a student fails in more than two subjects during the first professional session, they must take a supplementary exam in the next session. However, even if a student passes in the first valuation a second valuation is

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶42

mandated, this creates a unjust outcome where the student may receive lower marks in the second

¶43

valuation affecting his final result, the petitioner passed in the first valuation and the second valuation resulted in a lower or failing mark, the average of both the valuation was then used to determine a final result. Thus, unfairly penalizing the petitioner despite her success in the first valuation; that the 20% variation between the two valuations can trigger a third valuation, which determines the quality and consistency of the evaluation system, the petitioner failure to four subjects was due to the fault system resulting in denial of promotion to the second professional session. The petitioner contends that the evaluation system prescribed by the NCISM is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India warranting interference by this court.

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶46

submits that the rules and guidelines are arbitrary and discriminatory, the double valuation system particularly without an option for revaluation violates the right of equality. Further, it is stated that while considering a set of criteria of double valuation in M.B.B.S where the profession is para materia, a coordinate bench of this court in the case of DR.MANEKA MOHAN VS. THE REGISTRAR, RGHUHS¹ (DR.MENAKA MOHAN) has laid down the

¶47

manner, in which the requirement of evaluation has to be determined and places reliance on para 25 to 27

¶48

and submits that the formula as laid down in MANEKA'S case is considered the difference between

¶49

two evaluators valuation, the petitioner's percentage is more than 20% of the marks card difference and

¶50

the petitioner is entitled for third evaluator.

¶51

1 2019 KCCR 965

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

¶54

the NCISM supporting the statement of objections submits that the petitioner is seeking revaluation in four subjects cannot be granted since the same is impermissible by the MSE Regulation 2022, which provides that there shall be a double valuation system and shall be no provision for revaluation and the regulation prescribes only double valuation system alone. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for mandamus as there is no judiciously enforceable legal right under which the petitioner can be entitled for the relief. The decision placed reliance by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was a situation where it was about two ordinances and under that circumstances, the learned Single Judge of the coordinate bench of this court has arrived at a conclusion that the particular formula has to be adopted. It is submitted that even assuming that the

¶55

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶56

said decision is applicable to the present facts, the calculation arrived in the rejoinder does not fit within

¶57

paras 25 and 26 of the MANEKA'S case, which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶58

The learned counsel appearing for the RGUHS submits that the respondent is governed by Rules and Regulations framed by NCISM and the Regulation framed is in accordance.

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶60

for the parties, the questions that fall for consideration is,

¶61

(i) whether in the absence of the revaluation provision in the Regulation as prescribed by the NCISM, the petitioner is entitled for revaluation as contended by the petitioner in this writ petition? and

¶62

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶63

(ii) whether the non-granting of revaluation violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution?

¶64

The law is well settled that when a person

¶65

seeks a writ of mandamus, he must have a legal right. There must be a judicially, legally enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be an aggrieved person, when a person is denied a legal right by someone who had a legal duty to do something or abstain from doing something. The said proposition is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MANI SUBRATH JAIN VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS² (MANI SUBRATH JAIN).

¶66

The guidelines of double valuation system in the under graduate examination of BAMS/ BUMS/

¶67

2 (1997) 1 SCC 486

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶70

BSMS and BSRMS is culled out, wherein a provision for third valuation is described as under:

¶71

What is Third Valuation: Third valuation is a natural corollary of double valuation. There may be a possibility of a situation when the marks in two independent valuations vary in some abnormal proportions. Third valuation is a remedy for this situation.

¶72

The acceptable limit of variation of marks between two evaluators is up to 19% of the maximum marks.

¶73

If the difference in marks between the two evaluations is 20% or above a third valuation by another independent qualified evaluator is to be done.

¶74

Steps for double valuation is prescribed as

¶75

under:

¶76

1. Double Valuation :

¶77

12 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶79

An answer script will be evaluated by two independent evaluators.

¶80

Situation A

¶81

After double valuation, in case of variation between both the cores are up to 19% of the total marks, then average of both the scores will be considered as the final score.

¶82

In case of fractional scores if the fraction is 0.5 or above it is rounded off to the next highest digit and if the fraction is below 0.5 it is rounded off to the lower digit value.

¶83

Situation B

¶84

At the end of double valuation, if the variation between two independent scores is 20% and above of the maximum marks, then such scripts should be considered for third valuation.

¶85

2. Third Valuation:

¶86

A third independent evaluator / assessor evaluates

¶87

such scripts (situation B) and assigns the score.

¶88

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶89

The double valuation system was in light of a situation where a candidate may be badly affected by the quality / precision of an evaluation. In that case, the only option before the candidate in conventional setup is applying for revaluation. The double valuation policy was introduced as a remedy for such an unpleasant situation and two valuations are provided suo motu and average of two scores is taken as a final score and the difference in total marks in two independent evaluation is 20% of the marks card or above, a third valuation by an independent qualified evaluator is to be done. The petitioner's grievance

¶90

for considering the third valuation is only when the petitioner fulfills the criteria that the percentage marks obtained in the first valuation and the second valuation, the difference is above 20% of the marks card. The petitioner has not made out any ground or case that there is discrimination among the class of students, the double valuation system and the measures are adopted on the basis of the lessons from the experience in the field.

¶91

14 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶93

The writ Court cannot run or give opinion to the NCISM as to what is good and what is bad in the academic matters. It is only when there is a violation or of any fundamental right, it is when the Court can interfere. The double valuation system especially in the field of medical is justified, as the answer papers are amenable to two experts, who conduct revaluation and it cannot be said that it is discriminatory or in violation of Article 14 of the constitution. The regulation prescribed double valuation system only and the petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed, since there can be no mandamus without a judicially enforceable legal right. The Apex Court in the case of PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA AND OTHERS³ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava) has observed that in the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever

¶94

3 (2004)6 SCC 74.

¶95

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7723 WP No. 30403 of 2024

¶96

to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks. The Apex Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh⁴ (Ranvijay Singh) has reiterated that unless a rule or regulation governing an examination permits revaluation as a matter of right, it cannot be permitted the Court should not revaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets since academic matters are best left to the academics and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate, the petitioners are not entitled for revaluation as the regulations and the rules do not permit revaluation.

¶97