- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 14686 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI AADITYA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SHRI DEEPAK GUPTA, R/AT C/22, ROYAL ORCHID, CORPORATE ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380015 PRESENTLY STUDYING AT NMIMS BENGALURU CAMPUS, KALKERE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560083. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATEEK RATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SVKMS NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, NMIMS BENGALURU CAMPUS, KALKERE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATT ROAD, BENGALURU-560083 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR SVKM'S NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, NMIMS BENGALURU CAMPUS, KALKERE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 083. 3. DIRECTOR SVKM'S NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, NMIMS BENGALURU CAMPUS, KALKERE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560083. 4. REGISTRAR SVKM'S NARSEE MONJEE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, NMIMS BENGALURU CAMPUS KALKERE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 COMMUNICATED VIDE ELECTRONIC MAIL DATED 13.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN DECLARED AS FAIL IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT, DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAX RE- EXAMINATION FOR IIND YEAR, SEMESTER III, THEREBY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 PREVENTING HIM FROM BEING PROMOTED TO THE NEXT ACADEMIC YEAR, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the electronic mail dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure-A), declaring the result of the petitioner as 'FAIL', in the subject - Direct and Indirect Tax, Re-examination for II Year Semester - III, inter alia, sought for a direction to the respondent to evaluate the answer book of the petitioner in the subject of 'Direct and Indirect Tax' along with model answers and to consider the e.mail dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure-B). 2. Heard Sri. Prateek Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Maya Holla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 3. Sri. Prateek Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that, the respondent has erroneously applied the wrong Regulation of the Examination Policy, despite the petitioner having secured the necessary passing marks and as such, he was prevented from being promoted to next academic year. He further contended that, on comparison between 'petitioner's answer book' and the 'model answers' demonstrates that, the petitioner ought to have received an additional 9.5 marks excluding the 16 marks already awarded by the respondent as per Annexure-A. He further contended that, as per Annexure-E, the petitioner secured 11 marks and after revaluation at the instance of the petitioner, the respondent have awarded 16 marks and in this regard, it is submitted that, the erroneous valuation made by the respondent - Institution caused resulting in 'FAIL' in the said subject. He also submitted that the actual marks to be awarded to the petitioner as against the declared marks is on account of ignoring certain questions as well as the entire marking system by the respondent requires to be interfered in this writ petition and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 4. Per contra, Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the minimum marks for passing in the relevant examination is 20 and even if the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner would only be entitled for additional 7 marks plus 11 marks awarded as per Annexure- E and therefore, it is contended that, the queries and the e.mail addressed by the petitioner has been taken into account by the respondent and accordingly, the respondent have arrived at a conclusion that the total marks would aggregate to 18 marks, eventually, the petitioner would still fail in the relevant examination and therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'RAN VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' reported in (2018) SCC 357. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner has appeared for III Semester (2 years) Final Examination of Bachelor of Business Administration, Degree Course offered by the respondent - Institution. The petitioner has secured 16 marks - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 out of 50 marks in the subject 'Direct and Indirect Tax' and declared as 'FAIL' as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, petitioner sought for revaluation, pursuant to the e.mail addressed by the petitioner and same was increased to 19 as per Annexure-D. However, results were declared as 'FAIL'. The petitioner re- took the test and secure 11 marks out of 50 marks as per Annexure-E. Though the petitioner alleged there were discrepancies in the evaluation of his re-test paper, I have carefully examined the marks awarded in the original valuation, re-valuation and marks awarded after re-test and the petitioner has been declared 'FAIL'. It is settled principle in law that the interference of this Court in the processes of academic evaluation, ranking and selection is very limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and same are in the domain of academic field (see AIR 2012 SC 214). 6. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH (supra), that, in disputed questions of awarding marks, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24866 WP No. 14686 of 2025 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the discrepancies urged by the petitioner with regard to awarding lesser marks to the petitioner cannot be accepted as the petitioner has obtained lesser than the requisite marks in the qualifying examination, revaluation and re-examination conducted by the respondent - Institution and therefore, this writ petition is rejected. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82