Dismissed¶39

Ms Vaishnavi Vijay v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/36115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RGUHS Ordinance 05.09.2022 Central Assessment Programme; double evaluation; best-of-two marks computation; DCI BDS Course Regulations 2007 re-evaluation inapplicable where double evaluation exists; Section 35 RGUHS Act 1994; Section 20 Dentists Act 1948; BDS October 2025 examination failures; revaluation by two examiners with averaging refused; certiorari and mandamus declined; writ petitions dismissed; Karnataka HC EDN-RES; precedents WA No.1208 of 2022, WP No.11688 of 2023, WP No.5888 of 2024 upholding the Ordinance.

What did the court decide?

The re-evaluation provision of the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 permits re-evaluation of theory papers by not less than two duly qualified examiners with the average awarded, but is expressly not applicable in universities where a double evaluation provision exists. ¶31

Ms Vaishnavi Vijay Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the procedure adopted by RGUHS under the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 (No.RGU/Auth/24th Con/Synd/04/2022-23) of conducting only one revaluation for the BDS course is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the DCI Regulations / BDS Course Regulations, 2007. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Clause 5 of the RGUHS Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 provides for double evaluation — general valuation by the first eligible examiner and re-evaluation by the second eligible examiner through the digital valuation system — and is applicable to examinations conducted on or after 01.09.2022.

¶32

Key takeaways

Since a double evaluation provision exists in RGUHS under the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 do not apply to RGUHS.ratio¶32
Under the Ordinance, the best total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the papers shall be considered for computation of the results.ratio¶35
In the present case, the best total marks have been awarded to the petitioners under the Ordinance's computation method.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC at Bengaluru (Ashok S. Kinagi J.), 04.02.2026 — Two II BDS students who failed subjects in the RGUHS October 2025 examinations sought quashing of their revaluation results and fresh revaluation by not less than two independent examiners with averaging, contending that the RGUHS Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 (No.RGU/Auth/24th Con/Synd/04/2022-23), under which each theory script undergoes general valuation by a first examiner and re-evaluation by a second examiner with the best of the two totals computed, was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007. Held: the Ordinance, made under S.35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994, provides double evaluation; the DCI Regulations' re-evaluation provision is expressly inapplicable to universities having double evaluation, hence the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 do not apply to RGUHS; the Ordinance stands upheld in W.A. No.1208 of 2022 (Division Bench, 11.01.2023), W.P. No.11688 of 2023 (13.10.2023) and W.P. No.5888 of 2024 (14.03.2024); the procedure for evaluating answer scripts is an academic policy of the University with which courts cannot interfere absent arbitrariness; and the best total marks had already been awarded to the petitioners. Writ petitions dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 36115 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)

¶11

IN WP No. 36115/2025

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MS VAISHNAVI VIJAY D/O DR. N. VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, II BDS STUDENT, UNI. REG. NO.22D3103, V. S. DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, K.R. ROAD, V. V. PURAM, BENGALURU 560 004.

¶15

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560041. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).

¶19

DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

V. S. DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, K.R. ROAD, V. V. PURAM BENGALURU 560004.

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN/PRINCIPAL.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

[BY SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (VK FILED FOR R1) SRI. ADITHYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2]

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY RGUHS TO CONDUCT ONLY ONE REVALUATION UNDER THE ORDINANCE DATED 05.09.2022 WITH NO RGU/AUTH/24 CON/SYND/04/2022/23 VIDE ANNEXURE- C; IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAIN TO THE BDS COURSE IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND CONTRARY TO DCI REGULATIONS, AND II. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REVALUATION RESULT IN THE SUBJECTS GENERAL PATHOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY AND GENERAL AND DENTAL PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS OF THE 11 (BDS EXAMINATIONS OF OCTOBER 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE B UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE BDS COURSE REGULATIONS, 2007 FRAMED BY THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AND NO.1 AND ETC.

¶28

IN WP NO. 2139/2026

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

MR. DAIWIK D. KUMAR S/O DINESH KUMAR M, AGED 21 YEARS, II BDS STUDENT, UNI. REG. NO.24D0492, R/0. NO.203, SHRI GURU ENCLAVE, 4TH CROSS, AMAR JYOTI LAYOUT,

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH-560 094.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560041. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).

¶39

DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶40

SRI. RAJIV GANDHI COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCES AND HOSPITAL CHOLANAGAR, BENGALURU 560032. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN/PRINCIPAL.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

[(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VK NOT FILED)]

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DECLARING THAT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY RGUHS TO CONDUCT ONLY ONE REVALUATION UNDER THE ORDINANCE DATED 05.09.2022 WITH NO.RGU/AUTH/24TH CON/SYND/04/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAIN TO THE BDS COURSE IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND CONTRARY TO DCI REGULATIONS AND ETC.

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking following reliefs :

¶50

In WP No.36115 of 2025:

¶51

(i) “To declare that the procedure adopted by RGUHS to conduct only one revaluation under the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 with No.RGU / Auth / 24^th Con / Synd / 04 / 2022-23 vide Annexure- C; in so far as it pertains to the BDS Course is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to DCI Regulations, and

¶52

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned revaluation result in the subjects “General Pathology and Microbiology” and “General and Dental Pharmacology and Therapeutics” of the II BDS examinations of October 2025 vide Annexure-B; undertaken by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶54

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 framed by the Dental Council of India, and

¶57

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to conduct fresh revaluation of the petitioner’s answer script in the subjects “General Pathology And Microbiology” and “General and Dental Pharmacology and Therapeutics” of the II BDS examinations of October 2025 by not less than two independent and duly qualified examiners, strictly in accordance with the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and

¶58

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to award the average of the marks awarded by the two revaluation examiners and to reconsider and revise the petitioner’s result; accordingly, and to publish the same.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

In WP No.2139 of 2026:

¶63

(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, declaring that the procedure adopted by RGUHS to conduct only one revaluation under the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 with No.RGU / Auth / 24^th Con / Synd / 04 / 2022-23 vide Annexure-C insofar as it pertain to the BDS Course is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to DCI Regulations.

¶64

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned revaluation result in the subjects “General Anatomy including Embryology and Histology, General Human Physiology and Biochemistry, Nutrition and Dietics TP1, General Human Physiology and Biochemistry, Nutrition and Dietics TP2 and Dental Anatomy, Embryology and Oral Histology” of the I BDS examinations of October 2025 vide Annexure-B undertaken by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BDS course regulations, 2007 framed by the Dental Council of India, and

¶65

(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 - Rajiv Gandhi

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶67

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

University of Health Sciences to conduct fresh revaluation of the petitioners answer script in the failed subjects of I BDS examinations of October 2025 by not less than two independent and duly qualified examiners, strictly in accordance with the BDS Course Regulations, 2007; And

¶70

(iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to award the average of the marks awarded by the two revaluation examiners and to reconsider and revise the petitioners result accordingly, and to publish the same.”

¶71

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

¶72

The petitioners in both the petitions appeared for their respective BDS examinations conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University Health Sciences (“ RGUHS ”) in October, 2025 and the University announced the results on 18.11.2025.

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The petitioner in W.P. No. 36115 of 2025 failed in General Pathology & Microbiology, and General & Dental Pharmacology & Therapeutics. The petitioner in W.P. No.2139 of 2026 failed in the examinations.

¶76

The petitioners applied for the photocopies of the answer script and obtained the same. The petitioners met with the officials of the RGUHS seeking reconsideration. The authorities refused to interfere and advised approaching the Court. The ensuing BDS classes commenced at respondent No.3 College and the petitioners started attending the classes pending results.

¶77

The college informed the petitioners that they would be discontinued from attending the classes due to the declaration of failure in the subjects. Hence, the petitioners filed these petitions.

¶78

The respondent-RGUHS filed a statement of objections in W.P. No.36115 of 2025 stating that the

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶80

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and contended that the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 provides for evaluation of BDS course by two eligible examiners and is in consonance with the Regulations issued by the Dental Council of India. It is also contended that the said Ordinance was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1208 of 2022 and connected cases, vide order dated 11.01.2023 and in W.P. No.11688 of 2023 and connected matters vide order dated 13.10.2023.

¶83

The said Ordinance applies to the evaluation of theory and answer scripts of all undergraduate Medical, Dental, Pharmacy, Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, Nursing, Allied Health Sciences, BPT, BNYS courses, except for the students admitted to BAMS and BUMS Course on and after 2021-22. The petitioner was admitted to a BDS course of 2022

¶84

10 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

batch, to whom the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 applies.

¶88

It is contended that the evaluation of General & Dental Pharmacology and Therapeutics papers were done by two evaluators and the highest/best of the total marks awarded by the first evaluator i.e., 26 marks is considered for computation of results of the petitioner. Since, the petitioner did not secure 50% theory aggregate (theory 70 marks), she was declared failed in the said subjects. The ordinance issued by RGUHS is in accordance with the BDS Regulations, 2007. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶89

The petitioner in W.P. No.36115 of 2025 filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.1. It is contended that the central premise of the respondent-RGUHS is that the valuation scheme under the ordinance dated

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

05.09.2022 amounts to double valuation, is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and contrary to the academic jurisprudence.

¶94

It is also contended that the said ordinance is not in accordance with the Dental Council of India BDS Course Regulations, 2007 , and it is contended that the Ordinance Governing Valuation of the Undergraduate Answer Scripts dated 29.03.2019, prescribes that every theory answer script be evaluated independently by two eligible examiners and that the average of two marks so awarded shall be taken as final marks for the purpose of declaration of results.

¶95

The said ordinance is a clear and authoritative example of what constitutes genuine double valuation in practice. The ordinance dated 05.09.2022 prescribes a fundamentally different and diluted mechanism, wherein the answer script is first

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

subjected to a single original valuation, followed by a single revaluation, and thereafter, the single higher valuation mark is adopted for final computation.

¶100

It is stated that the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 framed by the Dental Council of India in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and these Regulations mandate that the evaluation of the theory papers shall be conducted by not less than two duly qualified examiners, and that the average of the marks awarded by such examiners shall be assigned to the candidates. The only exception carved out by under the Regulations is in respect of the universities where a true double valuation system exists.

¶101

It is also contended that no estoppel against the statute, and the judgments passed in WP No.5888 of 2024¹ is per incuriam and not binding for BDS

¶102

1 Sujith P.S. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, disposed on 14.03.2024 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj J.)

¶103

13 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

course and hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petitions.

¶107

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶108

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 is not in consonance with the DCI Regulations on revaluation. The DCI Regulations provides for revaluation. He submits that the revaluation of the theory papers in all the years of study of BDS course may be permissible by the University on the application and remittance of fees. Such answer scripts shall be re-evaluated by not less than two duly qualified examiners and the average marks obtained shall be awarded to the candidates. He has placed reliance on the DCI Regulations, 2007, which provides for re-evaluation. Hence, he submits that the action of the respondents in refusing to reevaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners is

¶109

14 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

arbitrary and erroneous. He also submits that the judgment passed in W.P. No.5888 of 2024 is per incuriam and is contrary to DCI Regulations. They have no estoppel against a statute and he also submits that the authorities on which the reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the University are not applicable to the case on hand and also the reliance placed on the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.1208 of 2022 connected matter² is wholly misconceived and legally untenable.

¶113

The said Writ Appeal in W.A. No.1208 of 2022 arises out of the challenge mounted by MBBS students and not by the students of BDS course. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions.

¶114

Per contra, learned counsel for the RGUHS submits that the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1208 of

¶115

2 WA No.1208 of 2022 connected with WA Nos.1214 and 1215 of 2022 (Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences and Anr. vs. Mr. Samarth S.S.) disposed of on 11.01.2023 (Coram: THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI)

¶116

15 -

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

2022, and connected matters ( supra ). The said ordinance is in consonance with the DCI Regulations. She submits that Clauses 4 and 5 of the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 provides for revaluation and the procedure for computation of results. She also places a reliance on the BDS Course Regulations, 2007 which provides that the universities where double evaluation provision exists, this provision of re-evaluation is not applicable.

¶120

She submits that there is a double evaluation in RGUHS as per the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and she also submits that a similar contention was raised before the Co-ordinate Bench in WA No.5888 of 2024 (supra).

¶121

The learned counsel for the University places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.

¶122

16 -

¶123

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

No.11688 of 2023 and connected cases³ . She

¶126

also submits that this Court has considered the ordinance dated 29.03.2019 in the said writ petitions. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶127

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶128

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners got admitted to their respective BDS courses. They appeared for the annual examination held in the month of October 2025.

¶129

The petitioner in W.P. No.36115 of 2025 failed in the subjects of General Pathology & Microbiology and General & Dental Pharmacology and Therapeutics. The petitioner in W.P. No.2139 of 2026 failed in all the subjects.

¶130

3 In WP No.11688 of 2023 and connected matters, ( V.Vamshi Krishna v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences) disposed of on 13.10.2023 ( Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ashok S.Kinagi)

¶131

17 -

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

The petitioners applied for the photocopy of the answer scripts. After obtaining the photocopy of the answer scripts, they approached the University seeking for re-evaluation. The respondents refused to re-evaluate the answer scripts on the ground that there is an ordinance issued on 05.09.2022. The said ordinance was issued under Section 35 of the Rajiv Gandhi University Health Sciences Act, 1994.

¶135

Subsection (4) of Section 35⁴ of the said Act provides that every ordinance made by the Syndicate shall have the effect from such a date as the Syndicate may specify, and every ordinance so made shall be submitted to the Chancellor and the Senate for the information.

¶136

Thus, the said ordinance was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1208 of 2022 and connected matters.

¶137

4 35. Ordinances .- (4) Every Ordinance made by the Syndicate shall have effect from such date as the Syndicate may specify, and every Ordinance so made shall be submitted to the Chancellor and the senate for information.

¶138

18 -

¶139

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

This Court in W.P. No.11688 of 2022 and connected cases ( supra ) had an occasion to consider the ordinance dated 29.03.2019 and recorded a finding that the petitioners therein could not point out in regard to the arbitrariness in promulgating the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019. It was also observed that the procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the University and that, when an ordinance is made by the Syndicate of the respondent-University consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education, it is impermissible for the Court to interfere with such a policy in the arbitrariness. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

¶142

“29. The petitioners are the students who do not have any right to dictate the university with regard to the process of revaluation as the same is the policy decision to be made by the university and

¶143

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶144

19 -

¶145

HC-KAR

¶146

the same cannot be done on the whims and fancies of the students. The university is conferred by statute in rule making power. The 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 held that, it is the university, the state/central authority which prescribes the methodology and the process of evaluation it should be left to the academicians to do their jobs and the Court should reframe in treading to their territory of policy decision. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parents association, RGUHS Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka in W.P.Nos.2905 and 453/2000 disposed on 19.12.2003 observed that the procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university and that when the ordinance is made by the Syndicate of the university consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education, it is impermissible

¶147

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶148

20 -

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

for the Court to interfere with such a policy in the arbitrariness.”

¶151

(emphasis supplied)

¶152

I have perused the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, which provides for the procedure for evaluation, and for the purpose of the case on hand, the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, as at Annexure ‘C’, is reproduced hereunder:

¶153

“ORDINANCE / NOTIFICATION GOVERNING VALUATION OF ALL UNDER-GRADUATE HEALTH SCIENCE COURSES THEORY ANSWER SCRIPTS

¶154

In exercise of the powers conferred under section 35(1) of RGUHS Act, 1994 and in supersession of all earlier Notifications / Circulars / Orders and Ordinances published governing All Under-Graduate Health Science Courses Theory Answer Script Valuation, the Syndicate of RGUHS is pleased to promulgate this Ordinance / Notification.

¶155

1. TITLE & COMMENCEMENT:

¶156

This Ordinance / Notification may be

¶157

called " Ordinance / Notification Central Assessment Programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment

¶158

21 -

¶159

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

of all Under Graduate Health Science

¶162

Courses of University ".

¶163

This Ordinance / Notification shall come into force with effect from the examination conducted on or after 01.09.2022

¶164

2. APPLICABILITY: This ordinance shall apply to evaluation of theory answer scripts of all Undergraduate Medical, Dental, Pharmacy, Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, Nursing, Allied Health sciences, BPT, BNYS Courses except for the students admitted to BAMS & BUMS on and after 2021-2022.

¶165

This ordinance is not applicable for vivavoce / clinical / practical examinations.

¶166

3. DEFINITIONS:

¶167

General Valuation - Means evaluation conducted by the first eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system.

¶168

Re-evaluation Means evaluation conducted by the second eligible

¶169

22 -

¶170

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶171

HC-KAR

¶172

examiners of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system.

¶173

4. PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION:

¶174

All answer scripts of all undergraduate health sciences courses of RGUHS be subjected to general evaluation by the first eligible examiner and re-evaluation by the second eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system before the computation of results.

¶175

5. PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF RESULTS:

¶176

The highest of the total marks awarded by either of the two evaluators i.e., best total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the paper shall be considered for computation of the results. If any decimals occurring during individual evaluator total marks awarded by the examiner shall be rounded off to the next higher value for the purpose of computation of results.

¶177

The marks awarded and the results so declared shall be final and under any

¶178

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶179

23 -

¶180

HC-KAR

¶181

circumstances further valuation shall not be entertained and should be made applicable prospectively.”

¶182

In ordinance clause 5 provides for procedure for computation of results , according to which the highest of total marks awarded by either of the two evaluators i.e., the best of total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the paper shall be considered for computation of the results.

¶183

Further, the Dental Council of India, BDS Course Regulations, 2007 provides for the re-evaluation, and the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

¶184

“Re-evaluation : The objective of reevaluation is to ensure that the student receives a fair evaluation in the university examination and to minimize human error and extenuating circumstances. There shall be two mechanisms for this purpose.

¶185

1. Re-totalling: The University on application and remittance of a stipulated

¶186

24 -

¶187

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

fee to be prescribed by the university, shall permit a recounting or opportunity to recount the marks received for various questions in an answer paper/ papers for theory of all subjects for which the candidate has appeared in the university examination. Any error in addition of the marks awarded if identified should be suitably rectified.

¶190

2. Re-evaluation: Re-evaluation of theory papers in all years of study of the BDS course may be permissible by the university on application and remittance of a prescribed fee. Such answer script shall be re-evaluated by not less than two duly qualified examiners and the average obtained shall be awarded to the candidate and the result accordingly reconsidered. However in those universities where double evaluation provision exists, this provision of reevaluation will not be applicable .”

¶191

( emphasis supplied by the Court )

¶192

On a perusal of the above Regulation on reevaluation, it is clear that the re-evaluation of the

¶193

25 -

¶194

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶195

HC-KAR

¶196

theory papers in all the years of study of BDS course is permissible by the University on an application and remittance of a prescribed fee and such answer scripts shall be re-evaluated by not less than two duly qualified examiners, and the average obtained is awarded to the candidate and the result accordingly reconsidered. However, in those universities where double evaluation provision exists, this provision of re-evaluation will not be applicable.

¶197

From the perusal of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 of RGUHS, it is clear that Ordinance (5) thereof provides for the double evaluation, and is applicable from the examinations conducted on or after 01.09.2022. It is pertinent to note that, the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 will not be applicable to the Universities where the double evaluation provision exists. As observed above, there exists a double evaluation provision in RGUHS. Hence, the

¶198

26 -

¶199

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶200

HC-KAR

¶201

DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 do not apply to

¶202

the RGUHS.

¶203

Further, a similar contention was addressed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5888 of 2024 (supra) and the relevant paragraph of which reads as follows:

¶204

“4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the valuation has been carried out in terms of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, where double evaluation is carried out by two evaluators, the higher mark to be awarded to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner has been awarded 23 marks since that is the higher valuation. He submits that since the ordinance having been challenged in W.P.No.11688/2023, this Court has upheld the validity thereof, by its order dated 13.10.2023 and further that this Court vide its order dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.No.11101/2020 has categorically held that the BDS course having a separate

¶205

27 - NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶206

HC-KAR

¶207

regulations, those regulations promulgated by the Dental Council of India would be applicable to the BDS course and not that relating to MBBS course, which was the subject of W.P.No.7505/2023, in its order dated 11.07.2023 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. On this ground, he submits that the action taken by the Universities does not require any interference. ”

¶208

(emphasis supplied)

¶209

Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held in paragraph No.7 as follows:

¶210

“ 7. Perusal of the above, it is clear that the best total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the papers shall be considered for computation

¶211

of the results . In this case, the best total mark is 23, which has been awarded to the petitioner. The judgment of this Court dated 11.07.2023 in W.P.No.7505/2023 was relating to RS3 batch of MBBS course and as such the said judgment would not be applicable to

¶212

28 -

¶213

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶214

HC-KAR

¶215

the petitioner, who was the student of Dental Sciences.”

¶216

(emphasis supplied)

¶217

On a perusal of the above, it is clear that the best total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the papers shall be considered for computation of the results.

¶218

In this case, the best total marks have been awarded to the petitioners.

¶219

This Court, in W.A. No.1208 of 2022 (supra) and W.P. No.11688 of 2023 and connected matters (supra) , has already considered the said Regulations, and upheld that the said Regulations also applies to the dental courses. Hence, the University has rightly declined to consider the requests made by the petitioners for re-evaluation.

¶220

Considering the judgment/orders passed by this Court in W.A. No.1208 of 2022 and connected

¶221

NC: 2026:KHC:6705 WP No. 36115 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2026

¶222

29 -

¶223

HC-KAR

¶224

matter, W.P. No.11688 of 2023 and connected matters, and WP No.5888 of 2024, and in view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petitions.

¶225

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed .

¶226

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶227

¶228

CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Ms Vaishnavi Vijay v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vaishnavi Vijay 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

Mr. S. M. Gopal Vs Shriram Finance Limited

Mrs Latha Prasad Vs Bharath Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

M/S. Pratham Agro Center Vs the Manager

Ms. Supreeti Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Khaiyum Syed Jalal Vs Authorised Officer

Mrs. Vijayshanthiprakash D @ Vijayshanthi Vs Asset Core and Reconstruction Enterprise Limited