Dismissed¶121

Ms. Supreeti Hegde v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/39405/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; single Judge (Ashok S. Kinagi); WP No. 39405 of 2025 (EDN-RES); decided 04.02.2026; dismissed. Keywords: RGUHS; BDS first year; revaluation; re-evaluation; double evaluation; best of two evaluators; DCI BDS Course Regulations 2007; RGUHS Ordinance 05.09.2022; ordinance 29.03.2019; writ of mandamus; answer scripts evaluation; AI tool based self-evaluation; academic policy non-justiciable; Dental Council of India; Human Anatomy QP Code 1178; Physiology & Biochemistry QP Codes 1179 & 1180; education; medical/dental education; Articles 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

Since there exists a double evaluation provision in RGUHS under its Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 (whose re-evaluation provision is inapplicable where double evaluation exists) do not apply to RGUHS.

Ms. Supreeti Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶121

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar-Evaluation of RGUHS to revalue the petitioner's BDS first-year papers in Human Anatomy including Embryology, Osteology and Histology (QP Code 1178) and Human Physiology & Biochemistry, Nutrition & Dietetics (combined, QP Codes 1179 & 1180), or alternatively direct evaluation by a third evaluator-professor and incorporate revised marks. +1 more

¶34-35

Court's answer

The Court cannot direct or redirect revaluation or evaluation by a third evaluator-professor, because double evaluation exists in RGUHS and the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 do not apply to RGUHS; consequently no ground was found to entertain the writ petition.

¶115

Ratio / Principle

¶99

Key takeaways

Under the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, the best (highest) total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for a paper shall be considered for computation of results.ratio¶113

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Articles 226 & 227, EDN-RES) by a BDS first-year student of Bangalore Institute of Dental Sciences seeking a writ of mandamus to RGUHS to revalue her Human Anatomy (QP Code 1178) and Human Physiology & Biochemistry (combined, QP Codes 1179 & 1180) answer scripts, or alternatively to have them valued by a third evaluator-professor: DISMISSED. Held: (i) the RGUHS Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 provides for double evaluation, with the best of the total marks awarded by either of the two evaluators taken for computation of results; (ii) the re-evaluation provision of the Dental Council of India BDS Course Regulations, 2007 does not apply to universities having double evaluation, and therefore does not apply to RGUHS; and (iii) the Court therefore cannot direct revaluation or third-evaluator assessment, no ground existing to entertain the petition. Reliance placed on earlier orders in W.A. No.1208 of 2022 (upholding the 05.09.2022 Ordinance), W.P. No.11688 of 2022/2023 (evaluation policy a matter of academic policy, not open to interference absent arbitrariness) and W.P. No.5888 of 2024 (best-of-two-marks computation).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶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 WRIT PETITION NO. 39405 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MS. SUPREETI HEGDE D/O SRI. SHRIDHAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/O NO.196, 8TH CROSS 1ST A MAIN ROAD KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN BANGALORE-560 060

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY IT VICE CHANCELLOR

¶16

THE REGISTRAR-EVALUATION RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BENGALURU-560041

¶21

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES 5/3, HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADJACENT TO NIMHANS CONVESTION CENTRE LAKKASANDRA, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

¶22

DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA NATIONAL DENTAL COMMISSION BUILDING PLOT No.14, SECTOR -9, R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI – 110 022 INDIA REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; R4 SERVED

¶25

SRI. ADITYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRAR-EVALUATION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT RGUHS UNIVERSITY TO REVALUE THE PAPERS IN RESPECT OF PAPERS HUMAN ANATOMY INCLUDING EMBRYOLOGY, OSTEOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY (QP CODE 1178).

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

Issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate direction to the Registrar-Evaluation of the Second Respondent RGUHS University to revalue the papers in respect of Papers

¶35

i) Human Anatomy including Embryology, Osteology and Histology (QP Code 1178) and

¶36

ii) Human Physiology & Biochemistry, Nutrition & Dietetics (Combined Paper - QP Codes 1179 & 1180) in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

¶38

Alternatively,

¶39

Issue appropriate order of direction to the third party evaluator and get the paper valued from a third party professor and thus Honorable Court may deem fit at the cost of the Petitioner and value the paper; if any marks obtained out of the revaluation, this Honorable Court may be pleased to direct the Third Respondent Registrar Evaluation of the University to incorporate the same in the

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Petitioners marks card in the interest of justice.

¶43

Grant any appropriate reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary under the circumstances of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this

¶45

petition are as follows:

¶46

2.1. The petitioner obtained eligibility through NEET examination to pursue BDS Course at RGUHS for academic year 2024-2025 and she was admitted to Bangalore Institute of Dental Science- 4^th Respondent. The petitioner

¶47

attended classes regularly as a bonafide student and maintained required attendance in all subjects. The petitioner appeared and wrote all BDS 1^st year Theory examinations consisting of 4 papers: 1. Human Anatomy,

¶48

Human Physiology, 3. Biochemistry and 4. Dental Anatomy. Thereafter, the results were declared on 18.11.2025 wherein the petitioner was failed in subjects i.e., Anatomy by 6 marks and Physio-Biochem by 4 marks.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The petitioner, on 19.11.2025 applied for the subject wise evaluated answer scripts from the respondent university through the college. After having received the subject wise answer scripts, the petitioner prepared subject wise and question wise comparison sheets for all 3 subjects. Self evaluation revealed that the petitioner should have obtained higher marks in the said subjects. Further, the petitioner also obtained independent evaluation using 2 AI tools applying the strict RGUHS standards which revealed that the petitioner should have obtained higher marks in the said subjects. It is contended that RGUHS regulations do not provide for revaluation, re-totaling or any review mechanism. Hence, this petition.

¶53

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for respondent- University.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶55

the petitioner is the student at 4^th Respondent with regular attendance. He submits that the petitioner appeared and

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

wrote all BDS 1^st year theory examinations consisting of 4 papers. However, the petitioner was failed in subjects i.e., Anatomy by 6 marks and Physio-Biochem by 4 marks. He submits that, the self evaluation and AI tools based evaluation reveals that the petitioner should have obtained higher marks and ought not to have failed in 2 subjects. He further submits that the petitioner is affected by inconsistent grading, having been failed in 2 subjects. He 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 has placed reliance on the DCI Regulations, 2007, which provides for re-evaluation. He submits that the issue of unfair valuation is ongoing for the past few years. Hence, he submits that either 3^rd evaluator-professor may be directed to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner or the university may

¶60

be directed to revaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner. Therefore, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent - University submits that the ordinance dated 05.09.2022

¶65

was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1208 of 2022, and connected matters disposed of on 11.01.2023 .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. She submits

¶66

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 WP No.5888 of 2024 disposed of on 14.03.2024 . she also places reliance on the judgment of this court in W. P. No.11688 of 2023 and connected cases disposed of on 13.10.2023 wherein, this Court has

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

considered the ordinance dated 29.03.2019. Accordingly,

¶71

on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶72

Perused the records and considered the

¶73

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶74

It is undisputed that the petitioner is the student at 4^th Respondent College. The petitioner appeared for 1^st year (RS3) BDS examination from 03.10.2025 to 08.10.2025 consisting of 4 papers in 3 subjects namely, Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry and Dental Anatomy. There after the results were declared wherein the petitioner was failed in Anatomy by 6 marks and PhysioBiochem combined by 4 marks and she passed Dental Anatomy.

¶75

From the perusal of Annexure G- Result sheet, it is evident that, in General Anatomy she obtained 27 marks for theory out of 70 marks, 2 marks for internal out of 10 marks and 15 marks for viva out of 20 marks. She has obtained total marks of 44 for General Anatomy paper

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

out of 100. Looking into the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Physio-Biochem combined; it is evident that she has obtained 27 marks in combined theory out of 70 marks, 4 marks out of 10 marks for internal and 15 marks for viva out of 20 marks. She has obtained total marks of 46 for Physio- Biochem combined paper out of 100. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that due to patent arbitrariness in the evaluation, the petitioner has failed in the above said 2 subjects and that after having compared the marks obtained in the traditional mode of evaluation with self assessment and AI Based tools applying the university standards, it is contended that she ought to have obtained higher marks in the above-mentioned papers.

¶80

This Court in W.P. No.11688 of 2022 and

¶81

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

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

29.03.2019. It was also observed that the procedure to be

¶86

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 respondentUniversity 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:

¶87

“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 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

¶88

State board of Secondary and Higher Secondary education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar

¶89

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

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

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

¶94

(Emphasis supplied)

¶95

Further, the Dental Council of India, BDS Course Regulations, 2007 provides for the re-evaluation which provides the re-evaluation of the 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.

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

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. 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. 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 DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 do not apply to the RGUHS.

¶100

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:

¶101

13 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

“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 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.”

¶105

(Emphasis supplied)

¶106

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

¶107

“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 of the results. In this case, the best total mark is 23, which has been

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:8876 WP No. 39405 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

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

¶112

(Emphasis supplied)

¶113

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.

¶114

Considering the judgment/orders passed by this Court in W.A. No.1208 of 2022 and connected matter, W.P. No.11688 of 2023 and connected matters, and WP

¶115

No.5888 of 2024 , and in view of the above discussion, this court cannot direct or redirect the revaluation or the evaluation to the 3^rd evaluator- professor since there exists a double evaluation provision in RGUHS and the DCI BDS Course Regulations, 2007 do not apply to the RGUHS. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition.

¶116