Dismissed¶62

Mrs. Minal v. Adichinchanagiri University

Education – Revaluation of MBBS answer scripts

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/37401/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (EDN-RES) dismissed: MBBS students of ADICHINCHANAGIRI UNIVERSITY denied court-directed revaluation of Physiology Part-II and Anatomy Part-I answer scripts by a third independent evaluator; both evaluators had awarded failing marks; grand totals 76/79/75 of 200, below 40% passing threshold; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; certiorari and mandamus refused; no precedent relied upon.

What did the court decide?

After averaging the two evaluators' marks and adding MCQ marks, the grand totals of petitioner No.1 (76/200), petitioner No.2 (79/200) and petitioner No.3 (75/200) are below 40% of passing marks. ¶50

Mrs. Minal Vs Adichinchanagiri University — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 37401 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS. MINAL D/O SHAKEEL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT, NO. 203, SHAKAMBARI APARTMENT, 2^ND FLOOR, NEAR KSRTC, MANGALORE, VTC MANGALORE, PO BIJAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575004.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR. DARSHAN B S/O. BOSAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YAERS, GOLLAYYANA HATTY, CHIKKAPRURA POST, CHALLAKERE SUB DISTRICE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577520.

¶13

MR. PAVAN SINGANAL, S/O, VENKATESH SINGANAL, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT WORD NO.12,

¶14

S. THIMMAPPA SINGANAL COMPLEX, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583227.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. HONNUR ALI., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

ADICHINCHANAGIRI UNIVERSITY

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

B.G. NAGARA, NH-75, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571448. REP. BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR.

¶23

THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) ADICHNCHANAGIRI UNIVERSITY, B.G. NAGARA, NH-75, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571448.

¶24

THE PRINCIPAL BGS MEDICAL COLLAGE AND HOSPITAL VIGNATAM SOUTH CAMPAS, NAGARUR, DASANAPURA BANGALURU NORTH-562123

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE REASONS STATED ABOVE GROUNDS URGED AND TO BE URGED, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE PETITIONERS HEREIN MOST HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO A) TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BEING ISSUE BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DO REVALUATION OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS IN RESPECT OF PHYSIOLOGY PART II, PERTAINING TO PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 AND THAT OF ANATOMY PART 1 PERTAINING TO PETITIONER NO.3 BY APPOINTING 3^RD INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE C) ISSUE ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking

¶35

following reliefs:

¶36

“a) to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned communication being issue by respondent No.1 in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

b) issue writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to do revaluation of the answer scripts in respect of Physiology Part II, pertaining to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and that of Anatomy Part 1 pertaining to petitioner No.3 by appointing 3^rd independent evaluator, in the interest of justice.

¶38

c) issue any other incidental orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the ends of justice and equity.”

¶39

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that in the examination conducted by respondent

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

No.1 in November 2025 for the medical course in MBBS for the Academic Year 2024-25, the petitioners have appeared for the examinations held in November 2025.

¶44

The petitioners have produced their result sheets as per Annexures ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ respectively. Accordingly to which, petitioner No.1 has failed in Physiology subject with 76 marks in theory and 78 marks in practical; petitioner No.2 has scored 79 marks in theory and 78 in practical in Physiology subject, and petitioner No.3 has scored 75 marks in theory and 76 in practical in Anatomy subject.

¶45

The petitioners have also produced communications dated 09.12.2025 depicting their detailed scores, as per Annexures ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘J’ respectively.

¶46

In case of petitioner No.1, for Physiology subject, the first evaluator has awarded 33 marks in paper-I and 29 marks in Paper-II, whereas the second evaluator

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

has awarded 24.5 marks in paper-I and 40 marks in paper-II; The average of marks in paper-I is 29 and paper-II is 35; After adding MCQ marks to each paper, the total marks awarded in paper-I would be 33 and paper-II would be 43 and the grand total is 76 for total marks of 200, which is below 40% of passing marks.

¶51

In case of petitioner No.2, for Physiology subject, the first evaluator has awarded 35 marks in paper-I and 25 marks in Paper-II, whereas the second evaluator has awarded 40 marks in paper-I and 27 marks in paper-II; The average of marks in paper-I is 38 and paper-II would be 26; After adding MCQ marks to each paper, the total marks awarded in paper-I would be 44 and paper-II would be 35, and the grand total is 79 for total marks of 200, which is below 40% of passing marks.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In case of petitioner No.3, for Anatomy subject, the first evaluator has awarded 26 marks in paper-I and 30 marks in Paper-II, whereas the second evaluator has awarded 30.5 marks in paper-I and 26 marks in paper-II; The average of marks in paper-I is 29 and paper-II is 28; After adding MCQ marks to each paper, the total marks awarded in paper-I would be 34 and paper-II would be 41 and the grand total is 75 for total marks of 200, which is below 40% of passing marks.

¶56

It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners have been awarded failed marks by both evaluators. Thus, both the evaluators have declared petitioner Nos.1 and 2 fail in Physiology subject and petitioner No.3 as fail in Anatomy subject. Hence, the question of directing the respondent-University to re-evaluate the answer scripts of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Physiology subject and Anatomy subject pertaining to petitioner No.3 does not arise.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:293 WP No. 37401 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The writ petition is dismissed .

¶63