- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 9023 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.9816 OF 2024, 10806 OF 2024, 11407 OF 2024, 16065 OF 2024, 16121 OF 2024, 23089 OF 2024, 31341 OF 2024, 31762 OF 2024, 32027 OF 2024, 3488 OF 2025 & 4756 OF 2025 IN WP NO.9023/2024 BETWEEN: 1 . KUM. AISHWARYA PATIL S/O SIDDALINGAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT BASAVESHWARA COLONY OPP LITTLE ANGEL SCHOOL RAICHUR-584 101. 2 . KUM. NAVYA D/O SURYA PRAKASH G AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT GM INFINITE E-CITY TOWNSHIP PHASE II 2ND FLOOR, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 100. ....PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE EXAMINERS; AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS IN WP NO.9816/2024 BETWEEN: 1 . DARSHAN R. S/O C RAJESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, 2ND ROAD, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA-577 527. 2 . KUM. SAKSHI G S D/O DR. SANATH KUMAR G K AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT SAKSHI 7TH CROSS TULASI ROAD GOKULA EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572 102. … PETITONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE EXAMINERS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.10806/2024 BETWEEN: 1 . CHINMAYA S L S/O LOKESH S K AGED 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.73, 3RD FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, R K GARDEN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU-560 054. 2 . NIHAR BORA S/O RAJANAND BORA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT BOYS HOSTEL VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, WHITEFIELD EPIP ZONE BENGALURU-560 066. 3 . KALEKHAN SAFIULLA KHAN S/O KALEKHAN SAMEER KHAN AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT BOYS HOSTEL VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, WHITEFIELD EPIP ZONE BENGALURU-560 066. 4 . BHUVAN GOWDA G S/O GAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, DEVANAHALLI TALUK YALUVAHALLI VIJAYAPURA BENGALURU RURAL-562 135. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE EXAMINERS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.11407/2024 BETWEEN: 1 . PRAJWAL JOGAR S/O VITHOBA JOGAR AGED 25 YEARS R/AT KAMALAMMA GUDI ONI, TUMMINAKATTI, HAVERI-581 119. 2 . TASMIYA RAFIK AHAMED KITTUR - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS D/O RAFIK AHAMED AGED 23 YEARS R/AT NOL.196, ARAVIND NAGAR, KARWAR ROAD OLD HUBLI, DHARWAD-580 024. 3 . ROHIT S/O HUSANAPPA AGED 25 YEARS R/AT NO.MIG-20, 2ND PHASE, ADARSH NAGAR NEAR RING ROAD KALABURGI-585 105. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE PETITIONERS ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE EXAMINERS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.16065/2024 BETWEEN: 1 . HIMANSHU RANJAN S/O SHEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT BOYS HOSTEL, SRINIVAS MEDICAL COLLEGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 011. 2 . GURU S H S/O SHARANA BHUPALAREDDY, AGED 22 YEARS, NEAR DYAVAMMA TEMPLE, NAIKAL, YADGIR-585 319. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS AND SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2) AND: 1 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE PETITIONERS; DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY SEND - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY ALL THE EXAMINERS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.16121/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SKANDASHREE V DEV D/O M K VASUDEVA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5, MALLANAYAKANAHALLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR-563 136. 2. ATIK ISHRAK S/O AMIN SARIF, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT GARIGAON, FAKIRPARA, MAZAR SARIF ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-781012. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS BENGALURU-560041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.23089/2024 BETWEEN: 1. PRIYA GHOSH D/O PRADEEP GHOSH - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS AGED 25 YEARS, R/AT TOWER M 1170 DIVYASHREE REPUBLIC OF WHITEFIELD EPIP ZONE, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066. 2. HARSHA METI S/O UMESH METI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS TIMMAPUR RAMPUR BAGALKOTE-587 207. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY SEND THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY ALL THE EXAMINERS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF UPCOMING EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.31341/2024 BETWEEN: 1. VISHRUTHI ACHAR S/O MAHESH KUMAR M AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.9/14, 6TH MAIN ROAD, SREEKANTESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 096. 2. DINESH REDDY S/O VEERENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/ATNO 8-9-386/A, GURU NANAK COLONY BEHIND NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BIDAR - 562 101. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 3. TARANUM S S/O SYED AMEIN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NO.540, ARALIKATTE STREET, BLUE BUILDING NEELKANT NAGAR, NANJANGUD MYSORE - 571 301. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC. IN WP NO. 31762/2024 BETWEEN: 1. HARINNI SHREE D/O ANBAZHAGAN R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NO. 23/F, 13B HIGH SCHOOL STREET ALLINAGARAM THENI TAMIL NADU - 625 531. 2. H SYED FARAZ S/O H SYED BILAL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT RAHAMANIYA SAW MILL KELAGINA KERI SHIRALAKOPPA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 428. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS IN WP NO.32027/2024 BETWEEN: 1 . KISHORE A C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR A L AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS NO.25 SAPTAGIRI 3RD MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR, R T NAGAR BENGALURU -560 032. 2 . SINDHOORA S D/O SATHYENDRA SALIAN B AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT 2-23/31, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MARUTHINAGARA, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 019. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS ALONG WITH VALUATION SLIPS OF THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.3488/2025 BETWEEN: 1 . RUSHABH R S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED 23 YEARS, R/AT EWS-23, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK, WARD NO.5, RAICHUR-584 101. 2 . YASHIKA VERMA D/O RAKESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.2170, 1ST FLOOR, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS NEAR IMT CHOWK, SECTOR-64, BALLABGARH, FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121 004. 3 . OJAS N S S/O SUNDARESH N S AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, VIDYANAGAR, R/AT 5450/B-18, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577 005. 4 . JISHAN ATHANI S/O RIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT SUDANGIRI ROAD, SADHUNGUDI ROAD, MAHALINGAPUR, BAGALKOT-587 312. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS OF THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY ALL THE EXAMINERS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF EXAMINATIONS; AND ETC. IN WP NO.4756/2025 BETWEEN: 1. NAVNEETH KUSHWAHA S/O AJAY KUMAR PRASAD AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO. 27(A) KAILASH NAGAR TIWARIPUR-2 JAJMAU SHIWANS TENRAY - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS KANPUR NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH - 208 010. 2. ADITHYA IRUDIA SATHYENDRA RAJU S/O IRUDIA RAJ SATHYENDRA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO. 531, 5TH BLOCK 3RD FLOOR RANKA COURT APTS CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT HALASURU BENGALURU - 560 008. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (PREVIOUSLY MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET-14, SECTOR 8 DWARKAR PHASE 1 NEW DELHI-110 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO 1 UNIVERSITY TO SEND THE PETITIONERS' ANSWER SCRIPTS TO ONE MORE VALUATOR FOR THE REVALUATION AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS BY CONSIDERING THE BEST MARKS AS AWARDED BY THE EXAMINERS; AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for writ of mandamus to the respondent-University seeking re-valuation by one more Evaluator in view of discrepancy of marks allotted by two Evaluators and to announce the results, inter-alia, sought for direction to respondent-University to provide key answers to the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS Examiners/Evaluators for evaluating the question papers of MBBS Examination conducted by respondent- University. It is also forthcoming from some of the writ petitions' prayer, that petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 26.08.2024 issued by the respondent-University, declining to provide key answers to the descriptive type of questions so also letter/Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 issued by respondent-University. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are pursuing I year MBBS Course under RS- 4 Scheme (2020 Batch) and respondent - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is regulating the Calendar of MBBS Course. It is the case of the petitioners that, few students have been declared as 'attempted/failed' in the I Year MBBS examination and have consequently been denied the opportunity to appear in the upcoming - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS supplementary examinations. It is also stated that, during valuation process, there was a difference of 15% marks, awarded by two Evaluators and accordingly, it is contended by the petitioners that, such difference has been considered as reckless evaluation process, tainted with errors manifesting in the entire system of valuation. The petitioners have made an application seeking photocopies of the answer books of the failed subjects and thereafter, realized that evaluations have been conducted without proper application of mind by the concerned qualified evaluators and also such photocopies of answer sheets indicate erratic, arbitrary and erroneous valuations, result in fail of such students, by the University. The petitioners have also urged that in several instances of the two Evaluators, the significant difference in evaluating the same questions and answers and further awarding less than required marks for the valid written answers and - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS therefore, the petitioners have contended that, they have become victims of poor assessment and lack of applicability of mind by the Evaluators and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 3. It is also contended by the petitioners in some of the writ petitions that, the respondent- University has failed to provide the qualified Evaluators and Examiners with reference to key answers, key words, key points, key phrases / terms, relevant to each questions. This failure, according to the petitioners, has led to inconsistent and unregulated valuation, allowing Evaluators to engage in unchecked and subjective assessment. It is the main grievance of the petitioners that the respondent-University be directed to provide key answers for all descriptive-type questions in the MBBS examinations to ensure consistency and objectivity in the evaluation process. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS The petitioners also challenge the Notification dated 26.08.2024 issued by the respondent-University, which declines to furnish key answers for descriptive questions. Hence, these Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners. 4. I have heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri. Pradeep Patil and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, for the petitioners-students; Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Smt. Farah Fathima and Smt. Mamatha Kulkarni, for the respondent-University and Sri. N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 5. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, invited the attention of the Court to the marks awarded by Evaluators Nos.1 and 2 at Annexure-G2 (Valuation - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS Slip) in W.P.No.9023 of 2024, wherein, the Evaluator No.1 has awarded 22 marks and the Evaluator No.2 awarded 55 marks; Annexure-K2 (Valuation Slip) in W.P.No.10806 of 2024, wherein Evaluator No.1 has awarded 29 marks and Evaluator No.2 has awarded 43.5 marks and in this connection, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, further invited the attention of the Court to the Minutes of 187th Syndicate Meeting held on 26.08.2024 (Annexure-K in W.P.No.9023 of 2024) and argued that, the Academic Council resolved that key answers shall not be provided to evaluators for essay-type questions across any course. It was further resolved that key answers would be supplied only for multiple-choice questions/objective questions, carrying one mark. In the backdrop of these aspects, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure-D in W.P.No.9023 of 2024) - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS which provides for procedure for valuation. Emphasising on of these aspects, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 18.03.2025 in W.P.No.16960 of 2024 and contended that, this Court, has pointed out about the large gap in awarding the marks by Evaluator Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, the Academic Council was directed to consider the case of the petitioners therein as well as in the interest of students to provide key answers / model answers to avoid discrepancy in evaluation of the answer scripts of the students and therefore, contended that, the request made by the petitioners for providing key/model answers for descriptive-type questions deserves favourable consideration to avoid further discrepancies in the evaluation of students’ answer scripts. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 6. It is also pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evaluation has been made by unqualified Evaluators, resulting in erratic and arbitrariness in awarding marks. It is also argued that, the National Medical Commission's competency based UG Curriculum for Indian Medical Graduates, prescribes the model question paper with key answers is a part of the examination process and same has not been adhered to by the respondent-University. It is also argued that, if key answers for descriptive answers be made available by the Paper Setters, same would result in avoiding further complication and non-application of mind by the Evaluators, resulting in fair evaluation. 7. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners further submitted that, one Evaluator awarded zero marks and another Evaluator awarded two marks for the same question, which tends to - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS discrepancy in awarding marks and therefore, key notes / key answers even in descriptive questions be provided by the Paper Setters, and as such, sought for interference by this Court. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranav Verma & Others vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh & Another in W.P.(CIVIL) No.565 of 2019 disposed of on 03.05.2018, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 377 and contended that, where there is large gap between the marks awarded by the first and second Evaluators, same would affect the career of the students and accordingly, sought for interference in the matter. 8. Per contra, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS submitted that, valuation of the answer scripts of the petitioners is governed by 'Ordinance-Notification governing Central Assessment Programme' (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all Under Graduate Courses dated 05.09.2022 issued by the respondent-University. The above Ordinance provides for general evaluation by Examiner/Evaluator No.1 and thereafter, re-valuation by the Examiner/Evaluator No.2. The University shall consider the highest of the marks awarded by either of the two Evaluators and therefore, the higher score between the evaluators shall be considered for declaring the results and therefore, the petitioners have no grievance in respect of the Notification/Ordinance dated 05.09.2022. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University, that this Court in W.P.No.11688 of 2023 and other connected matters vide order dated 13.10.2023, upheld the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and therefore, the - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS question relating to revaluation attained finality and in that view of the matter, the prayers challenging the Notification/Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and 26.08.2024, do not survive for consideration. 9. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University elaborately, explained about difficulty in providing key answers to the descriptive type of questions as such questions require a detailed answer by the paper setter and pointed out that, the essential features be made available for examiners and that itself cannot be considered as a key answer to the descriptive type of questions. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University, submitted that, providing key answers to descriptive questions in respect of MD- Homeopathy was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.16960 of 2024 and this Court vide order dated - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 18.03.2025, dismissed the writ petition, however, directed the respondent-University to provide key answers. 10. It is also submitted by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners in these writ petitions have been admitted during 2019-20 (RS-4 Batch) and as per Regulation 7.7, (Annexure-R1 in Statement of Objections). The students are permitted to pass the first Professional Examination in four attempts and as such, since the petitioners herein have not passed the first Professional Examination as per the said Regulation, petitioners have no legal right to claim the relief as sought for in these writ petitions. 11. Nextly, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that this Court exercises limited jurisdiction in matters involving academic issues. He further contended that - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS questions relating to academic policy, including evaluation procedures and the decisions to provide key answers for descriptive-type questions, fall within the exclusive domain of academic bodies and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 12. Sri. N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for the National Medical Commission (for short 'NMC') submitted that, respondent–University had addressed a letter dated 20.11.2024 to the NMC, seeking clarification on the provision for key words / model answers for evaluating descriptive type questions of theory examinations for Medical Under Graduate and Post Graduate Courses and upon consideration thereof, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the President of the NMC and after deliberations, the Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the detailed key answers required for the descriptive - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS questions are useful, however, analytical skills required in medical practice, however, providing key answers to long and short descriptive questions in MBBS examinations is not feasible for several reasons mentioned in the Notification dated 13.12.2024, and as such, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, petitioners herein were pursuing I year MBBS Course under RS-4 Scheme (2020 Batch) regulated by the respondent-University. As per the Notification dated 18.08.2012, the prevailing scheme permits only a single round of valuation with no provision for revaluation. The only recourse available to aggrieved students is to apply for re-totalling. Thereafter, Notification dated 01.02.2021 was issued by the respondent-University, wherein, the scheme of - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS valuation is being conducted by a panel of two internal Examiners/Evaluators and in the event of difference of marks between the two Evaluators is 15% or more, then such answer scripts shall be referred to the third valuator and best of two higher marks be reckoned for announcing the results. The said Notification dated 01.02.2021 came to be set aside by this Court in W.P.No.13626 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021. Thereafter, the respondent-University has issued another Notification dated 05.09.2022 and same was questioned in W.P.No.23089 of 2024, which provides procedure for valuation. Clause 4 of the said Notification provides for procedure for valuation and Clause 5 provides for procedure for computation of results. Clause 4 and 5 reads as under: " 4. PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION: All answer scripts of all undergraduate health sciences courses of RGUHS be subjected to general - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 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. 5. PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF RESULTS: 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." (Emphasis supplied) 14. In the backdrop of the above Notification issued by the respondent-University, valuation by a third Evaluator or providing re-valuation does not arise in respect of the students of MBBS. Under similar circumstances, student of the Homeopathy Medical College, questioned the Ordinance governing valuation by the fourth valuator without a model answer key in W.P.No.16960 of 2024 and this Court, vide order dated - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 18.03.2025, at paragraph 18.21 to 19.3 held as follows: "18.21.The manner in which cases have been coming up before this Court, if the numbers are tabulated, it would be clear to the University that thousands of petitions are coming up as regards the discrepancy in the valuation on account of which, a student has been declared failed. 18.22. It is not only the number of litigations that has to be seen, but the number of lives which are dependent on such evaluation too, more particularly students in the younger age group whose confidence could be adversely affected if they are declared failed on account of improper evaluation. The impact of this on the psyche and the future of the student, on the family of the student, the society as a whole, as also on the college and the University need not be more emphasized. The reasoning of the Academic Council would indicate that there are 30,000 subjects being taught and there are already 10 question papers for each subject which have been prepared that would mean that the University has no problem or difficulty in preparing 30,000 question papers, but has expressed only difficulty as regards preparing corresponding model answers or - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS key answers. The Academic Council would have to reconsider its decision on this aspect. The very same person, who is setting the question papers would be the best person to prepare the key answers or model answers. Thus, while preparing the question paper, the model answers or key answers could also be prepared by the very same person, who has set/drafted the question paper. This would not cause any administrative strain on the University, but would go a long way in catering to the difficulties faced by the students, while doing so the above aspects pointed out could be considered apart from those that may be indicated as guidelines by the Academic Council approved by the Syndicate. 18.23.The approach of the Academic Council apparently has been to find fault with and or find difficulties in preparing the model answers and key answers. The Academic Council ought to have actually looked into how to solve the problems of the students, the colleges and the University, thus bringing a stop to these kinds of litigations which are a pain for everyone. No student wants to come to court to agitate their grievances. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Academic Council would be well advised to reconsider the decision and appoint an external agency to look into this aspect and work towards providing model answers and key - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS answers by working out a methodology as to how it can be provided rather than to state the difficulties of providing it. This being the need of the day, I am sure the Academic Council and the Syndicate would take this in the right perspective and implement a proper system. 19. Answer to Point No. (vii): What Order? 19.1. In view of my findings to all of the above points, I do not find any discrepancy in the ordinance issued for governing the evaluation process of the examinations for Post Graduate including Diploma and Super Speciality courses, nor is there any manifest arbitrariness in the ordinance issuing process. 19.2. As regards the manner of evaluation, I do not find any discrepancy in evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner, however I find the need for training the evaluators before giving them the work of evaluation, hence the University is directed to carry out necessary training in that regard. 19.3. In so far as providing key answers/model answers, the Syndicate and Academic Council are directed to reconsider their earlier decision in terms of the observations made hereinabove." - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 15. Though the above Judgment is with regard to the discipline of Homeopathy, however, this Court directed the respondent-University to reconsider the decision to provide key answers / model answers to the descriptive questions also. It is also to be noted from the NMC letter dated 13.12.2024, wherein, an observation has been made to provide key words or key answers in certain contexts in Medical Course, however, had taken decision that, on account of complicity and depth of medical education necessitated a more comprehensive approach to assessment that can evaluate thinking, problem solving and effective communication and finally, the NMC agreed with the Minutes of the 187th Syndicate Meeting held on 26.08.2024 on the subject 6(1). It is also forthcoming from these writ petitions that the valuation made on certain answer sheets depicts large gap of more than 25 to 30 marks by each of the Evaluators. In that view - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS of the matter, though I am conscious of interference by this Court by exercising judicial review in respect of educational matters which is limited as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another V. State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309, however, the observation made by the NMC in their letter dated 13.12.2024 infuse certain aspects relating to providing essential key answers in descriptive questions to enable the Evaluators to know the broader view in assessing the answers. It is also to be noted that, there is no impediment for the respondent-University to regulate a relevant Rule by directing the Paper Setters to provide essential features as an answer to the descriptive questions which would resolve the grievance of many of the students questioning in large number of writ petitions before this Court. It is also to be noted that, an argument was - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS advanced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra V. Devarsh Nath Gupta and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 970 with regard to providing possible options in descriptive questions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, made an observation to the effect that, in the absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Courts should not generally direct for revaluation. 16. In the case of CBSC Vs. Kushboo Srivastava reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523, the respondent therein has challenged the results of the examination of the All India Pre Medical-Pre Dental Extract examination 2007 seeking for re-valuation of her answer sheet and the relief sought for by the petitioner therein came to be declined on the ground that there was no provision for the same. It is also - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University vs. Sameer Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309, paragraph 16 reads as under: "16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect." - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS 17. The aforementioned dictum was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus lies on the candidate to clarify and demonstrate that, the key answer is incorrect. It was also observed that the court can recommend few steps to be taken by the examination authority namely, a) Establishing a system of moderation b) avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation and c) prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to such question. 18. I am also conscious about the fact that, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by respondent-University, however, taking into consideration repeated writ petitions having - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS been filed challenging the marks allotted in the answer scripts, I am of the opinion that, it is relevant for the respondent-University to provide essential key answers for descriptive questions to avoid ambiguity in marking as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the students/petitioners demonstrates the large gap between the marking of Evaluator No.1 and Evaluator No.2 in allotting marks. It is the grievance of each of the students/petitioners in these batch of petitions, pointing out the vagueness and impropriety in marking of answer scripts, that too, in professional course like Medicine, Dental, etc., have greater impact on the career of the students. Perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.2-NMC would indicate that by providing key answers to Evaluators/Examiners, meets the need for standardising the process of evaluation sought for by the respondent-University. This would minimise the - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS vagaries of marking by different evaluators and regarding the same, it cannot be totally brush-aside that, the contentions raised by the petitioners in these batch petitions with regard to providing essential key answers to the descriptive questions. While it may be practically difficult for a paper setter to provide detailed key answers for descriptive questions, it is still feasible for them to outline essential points or key elements expected in the answers. If the respondent-University adopts a policy requiring paper setters to provide such key answers, it would assist Evaluators in understanding the expected responses from students. This, in turn, would help minimize the difficulties faced by aggrieved students and promote a fairer evaluation process and transparency be maintained during the evaluation process. Hence, I pass the following: - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS ORDER i) The writ petitions are allowed in part; ii) The Syndicate and Academic Council of the respondent-University is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, specifically with regard to providing essential key answers or model answers for descriptive questions, in order to prevent anomalies or ambiguities during the initial evaluations and to ensure fairness and transparency in the examination process. iii) The respondent-University is directed to forward the answer scripts of the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, to an additional Evaluator for fresh assessment, in light of the significant discrepancy between the marks awarded by the - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS Evaluators Nos. 1 and 2 and to complete the entire process within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the results shall be announced forthwith. In the event the petitioners are found to have passed the examination after evaluation by the additional Evaluator, such petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits arising therefrom, as applicable. iv) It is made clear that the direction issued by this court with regard to, additional evaluation of the answers scripts of the petitioners herein by the respondent- University, is only confined to the relief sought for in these writ petitions and - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29419 WP No. 9023 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9816 of 2024 WP No. 10806 of 2024 AND 9 OTHERS cannot be construed as precedent for any other cases, as such. v) In view of the above observations, the validity of the notifications dated 26.08.2024 and 05.09.2022 issued by the respondent-University shall be examined in the appropriate proceedings. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53