- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2025 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN: RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR EVALUATION. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KULKARNI MAMATA GURURAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. GOWTHAM R, S/O RAVINAIDU M, R/O NO.3, VENU MADHAVI NILAYA, 4TH FLOOR, FF-1, 3RD A MAIN SRW ROAD, NANDAKUMAR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560061. 2. DR. SUBASHINI T.V, D/O TAMIL SELVAN A, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, UNI REG NO 21 YG260, R/O NO 11-W 204, OPP EB HEAD OFFICE OMLUR, SALEM, TAMIL NADU-636 455. 3. DR DUPLIEX SHIV PRASAD N, S/O NAGAIAH D, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 UNI REG NO 21YG 146, R/O NO 168, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BEML LAYOUT, 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 090. 4. DR. VENKATESH PRASAD, S/O MR. H T NATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, UNI REG NO. 21MG 199, R/O NO. 4271, 11TH MAIN, J BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, DATTAGALLI MYSORE-570 033. 5. DR. ARUSHI SONI, D/O DR. DILIP SONI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UNI REG NO 21ME308, R/O BAGDIYA GOVT. HOSPITAL, SAJANGARH CHARU, RAJASTHAN-331 507. 6. DR. KANNEGANTI SRIHAR REDDY, S/O MR. PULLAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, UNI REG NO 21MG262, R/O NO 19-1-68 HARIDAMA BAZAR MARKET ROAD, PALWANCHA PALONCHA KHAMMAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-507 115. 7. DR. NAVEEN VISHWANATH REDDY DARSHANAPUR, S/O VISHWANATH REDDY S DARSHANAPUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UNI REG NO 21 MG 166, R/O HIG, HOUSE NO.22 KGB COLONY BAPUGOUDA NAGAR, SHAHAPUR, YADGIR-585 223. 8. DR. RACHITHA MANJUNATH, D/O MANJUNATH S, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 UNI REG NO 21MG170, R/O NO 3308/6, 12TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, MCC 'B' BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 004. 9. DR. DYLAN D. SOUZA, S/O MR. DONATH HENRY D-SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UNI REG NO 21ME281, R/O GREEN GROVE, KODAVOOR POST, UDUPI-576 106. 10. DR. PRADYOTHA SUMAN, D/O K C. MALLA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, UNI REG NO.21 ME269, R/O NO.449, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. 11. DR. SURAJ MACKSON PINTO, S/O MR. MICHAEL OSWALD PINTO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21YG 288, R/O NO.2-206, SONA-SURAJ SADAN, GANJIMUT HOUSE AND POST, MANGALORE -574 144. 12. R. DHEEPIKA R, D/O MR. R. RAJENDIRAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21MR098, R/O NO.1337, 14TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078. 13. DR. BASAVANAPPA, S/O SHARANAPPA RUNOOR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UNIREG NO 21ME226, R/O NO 2/5/92, NOOLA GALLI SEDAM, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 KALABURGI-585 222. 14. DR. KARTIK KATTI, S/O MR. RAVINDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21MR139, R/O ASHARAM ROAD, ANAND NAGAR, NEAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BIJAPUR-586 103. 15. DR. ROHAN BHAT, S/O MR. MULKI VIVEKANANDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21MY204, R/O FLAT 504, VAISHNAVI APARTMENTS, ASRP ROAD, DONGERKERY, MANGALORE-575 003. 16. DR. NABHAY GANGADHRASWAMY, S/0 DR. GANGADHRASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21YT242, R/O NO.135/136, 1ST A MAIN, WOC ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 086. 17. DR. PYATA DINESH REDDY, S/O MR. PYATA MAHIPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.20ME065, R/O VILLA NO.15, POULOMI ARISTOS, LANE 4, KOKAPET, K.V. RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-500 075. 18. DR. SHIVANI M. KUMAR, D/O MR. MAHESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21MO130, R/O NO.53, 16TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 19. DR. DEBALINA SARKAR, D/O MR. PRABAL KUMAR SARKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, UNI. REG. NO.21MG346, R/ NO.52B, HINDUSTHAN PARK, SARAT BOASE ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700 029. 20. DR. BHARATH N, S/O MR. L. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, UNI REG. NO.21MG216, R/O NO.134 AND 136, LAKSHMIPATHY GARDEN, HBR 18TH BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, SUBASH LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 043. 21. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, POCKET-14 SECTOR 8, DWARAKA NEW DELHI-110 077. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WPs 9618/2025, 9718/2025, 9800/2025, 9999/2025, 10010/2025, 10011/2025, 10015/2025, 10018/2025, 10020/2025, 10022/2025, 10023/2023, 10204/2025, 10217/2025, 10228/2025, 10229/2025, 10240/2025, 10244/2025, 10263/2025, 10270/2025 AND 10390/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.4.2025 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the present appeal does not survive against the respondents except respondent Nos.5, 10 and 14 to 20. 2. The appellant [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant-University to conduct two additional evaluations of the theory answer scripts of all papers of the Post Graduation-Medical examination taken by the respondents in January, 2025, by separate examiners. And, in the event the difference in such evaluations of the examiners being in excess of 15%, an additional fifth evaluation, within a period of 3 weeks from the said date. 3. It is the appellant’s case that the evaluation mechanism has been specified in Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 [PGMER 2023]. The same - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 provides that the two examiners would evaluate an answer sheet and an average of their evaluations would be the evaluated score of the candidate. However, if there is a variation of 15% in the valuation by the two examiners, then it will be referred to a third examiner and an average of the best of two evaluations would be taken as the candidate’s score. Prior to PGMER 2023 coming into force, the extant regulations provided for evaluation by four examiners and an additional evaluation in case of variation in excess of the specified limit. 4. It is the case of the respondents that their answer sheets are required to be evaluated on the basis of the regulations that were in force prior to PGMER, 2023 coming into force. The appellant contends to the contrary. According to the appellant, the answer sheets of the theory examination of the post graduate course is required to be evaluated in accordance with PGMER 2023. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 5. The learned Single Judge has not expressed any view – prima facie or otherwise – on the aforesaid controversy. However, to avoid further delay, the learned Single Judge has directed that the answer sheets be evaluated in the manner as claimed by the respondents. The learned Single Judge has also amply clarified that the exercise of evaluation in the said manner would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the further order that may be passed by the Court. It has been further clarified that the respondents would not claim any equities. Additionally, the Single Judge has clarified that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions. 6. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any prejudice is caused to the appellant. 7. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that notwithstanding the clarification issued by the learned Single Judge that no - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 equities would be claimed, it is inevitable that a candidate who has failed in evaluation as per PGMER 2023 and has succeeded on the basis of the evaluation as directed, would claim equities. He also suggests that the results of re-valuation be kept in the sealed cover. In our view the apprehension expressed by Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior is not well founded. The question as to how the answer sheets are to be evaluated will necessarily have to be decided in accordance with the relevant regulations. There is no scope for any of the respondents to claim any equities. However, to allay any apprehension on the part of the appellant, we hereby clarify that the candidate who has failed on the basis of the evaluation as per the PGMER 2023 Regulations, but has succeeded on the basis of the exercise conducted pursuant to the impugned interim order will not be entitled to be considered as having cleared the examination, if the appellant prevails before the learned Single Judge on merits. In other words, if it is found that in law the evaluation is required to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28250-DB WA No. 771 of 2025 conducted as per PGMER 2023 Regulations, the candidate would necessarily have to be considered as having failed. 8. The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid clarification. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12