- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34928 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: DR.LIKHITHA.V., D/O DR.V.VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, POST GRADUATE STUDENT, M.D. (ENT), R/O NO.64/2, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU- 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 041. 2. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI- 110077. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT.MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION OF THE PETITIONER'S ANSWER PAPER I OF THE SUBJECT M.D.- ENT OF THE P.G MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF SEPTEMBER 2025, BY APPOINTING TWO NEW EXAMINERS OTHER THAN THOSE WHO EVALUATED EARLIER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS REGULATIONS AND TO DECLARE THE RESULT BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent-University to conduct an additional evaluation of the Petitioner's Answer Paper I of the subject M.D.-ENT of the P.G Medical Examination of September 2025, by appointing two new examiners other than those who evaluated earlier, in accordance with its regulations and to declare the result based on the additional evaluation; within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interests of justice and equity; and ii. Declare that the Registrar (Evaluation), being a statutory authority under the RGUHS Act, possesses the power and is under a duty to exercise such discretion in cases involving apparent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 evaluation errors or exceptional hardship, and that his refusal to do so in the present case amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction and arbitrary inaction; and iii. To direct the Registrar (Evaluation), RGUHS, to exercise the discretion vested in him to order re-evaluation or additional evaluation in exceptional cases of manifest error, including that of the Petitioner herein, in accordance with the principles of fairness, equity, and uniformity; and iv. To direct the Respondent-University to consider the existing system of valuation presently followed under Regulation 8.4 of the NMC Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, whereby different sets of examiners are appointed for each of the four theory papers, and to evolve a more holistic and uniform system consistent with the spirit of the said Regulation and the principles of fairness, transparency, and academic consistency; and in consultation with the National Medical Commission and other affiliated medical colleges, to examine the feasibility of implementing a unified evaluation process wherein the same pair of examiners may assess all four theory papers of a candidate, with a third examiner being appointed only in cases of substantial difference in marks as contemplated under Regulation 8.4(b), and to place the outcome of such reconsideration before this Hon'ble Court within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and v. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is a student of M.D. (ENT) course in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 first Respondent-University, which conducted an examination in September, 2025. In the said examinations, the details of the marks secured by the petitioner are as under: Theory paper No.1 36 Theory paper No.2 61 Theory paper No.3 55 Theory paper No.4 55 TOTAL 207/400 3. It is needless to state that the petitioner has obtained pass marks in Theory Paper Nos.2, 3 and 4 as indicated above. Further, the aggregate/overall pass marks of 207 has also been obtained by the petitioner by adding up the marks secured by her in all the four papers. 4. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that two Evaluators are appointed to conduct evaluation in respect of each paper as per Regulation 8.4 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER- 2023) issued by the second respondent-National Medical - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 Commission. Insofar as Theory Paper No.1 is concerned, two Evaluators conducted evaluation of the petitioner's examination in which one Evaluator gave passing marks of '41' while the second evaluator gave '31' marks. The aggregate/average of which came to '36', which was lesser than the minimum passing marks of '40' as required in each individual paper. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner obtained aggregate/overall marks of '207', which entitled her to become eligible to pass the examination, since the petitioner obtained an average/ aggregate of '36' marks in Theory Paper No.1, the Respondent-University is refusing to conduct additional valuation and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. Per contra, Shri.Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior counsel appearing for the first Respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Shri.H.R.Showri, learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent-National - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 Medical Commission Undergraduate Medical Education Board jointly submit that having regard to Regulation 8.4(b) of the aforesaid Regulations, valuation by a third valuator is permissible only if the difference between two valuations is minimum of 15% or more of the total marks prescribed for the paper and in the absence thereof, the question of directing third evaluation would not arise and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A perusal of the undisputed material on record, in particular, the marks secured by the petitioner in the four individual Theory Paper Nos.2, 3 and 4 will indicate that the petitioner had obtained/secured pass marks of 61, 55 and 55 respectively; so also, insofar as Theory Paper No.1 is concerned, while one valuator has granted '41' marks in favour of the petitioner, which is sufficient to pass the petitioner in Theory Paper No.1, the second valuator has granted '31' marks, as a result of which, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 aggregate of marks secured by the petitioner for Theory Paper No.1 would come to '36', which is four marks lesser than the minimum pass marks of '40' to be obtained for passing Theory Paper No.1. However, having regard to the fact that sum total/aggregate of the marks obtained by the petitioner in all four papers would come to '207', which is sufficient to make the petitioner pass in the said examination coupled with the fact that one of the Evaluators has already granted '41' marks in favour of the petitioner even in relation to Theory Paper No.1, in order to do substantial justice and on the grounds of equity, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction/ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the first respondent-University to refer Theory Paper No.1 of the petitioner to a third Evaluator and take the average of the best two total marks awarded by the three Evaluators for the paper rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number) for the purpose of final computation of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 result and announce the results of the evaluation within a stipulated time frame and in accordance with law. 9. 9. Insofar as the contention urged by the respondents that Regulation 8.4(b) permits reference to a third Evaluator only in the event of there being a difference of minimum 15% and more of the total marks prescribed for the paper is concerned, having regard to the finding recorded by me herein before that the petitioner having obtained pass marks upon taking the aggregate/ sum total of all the marks together and since the petitioner has obtained '207' marks, which is sufficient to make her pass, coupled with the fact that one of the Evaluators in respect of Theory Paper No.1 has already granted the minimum pass marks of '41' in favour of the petitioner and the fact that this Court deems it fit to exercise its jurisdiction/ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by applying the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and in order to do substantial justice, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50108 WP No. 34928 of 2025 the said contention urged by the respondents cannot be accepted. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii) Respondent No.1-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Jayanagar, Bengaluru is directed to refer Theory Paper No.1 written by the petitioner to a third Evaluator and announce the result, in terms of Regulation 8.4(b) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11