1 CGHC010057582024 2026:CGHC:28799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1038 of 2024 Order Reserved on: 22.6.2026 Order Delivered on: 10.7.2026 1 - Dr. Tamilarasan M. S/o Late. Murugesan K. A, Aged About 27 Years R/o House No.47, 1st Floor, Fortune Residency, Below Mohba Bazar Flyover, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - All India Institute Of Medical Science Raipur, Through Its Director, Great Eastern Road, Opposited Gurudwara, Aiims Campus, Tatibandh, Raipur, Chattisgarh. 492099. 2 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Room No. 348, A, Wing, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110011. 3 - National Medical Commission Pocket - 14, Sector -8, Dwarka Phase - 1, New Delhi. 110077. 4 - All India Institute Of Medical Science Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar, Ansari Nagar East, New Delhi. 110029 ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Rashmi Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, CGC. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, to set aside the result of final theory examination which scheduled between 05.12.2023 to 11.12.2023 and the final practical examination which was scheduled between 13.12.2023 to 22.12.2023. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to grant bonus marks to the petitioner in respect to the question asked out of syllabus. 10.3 Direct the respondents to revalue the answer script of the petitioner in accordance with the governing erning rules by independent panel. 10.4 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authority to quash the supplementary 3 examination which is scheduled to be started from 20.02.2024 to 02.03.2024. 10.5 pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just, including awarding of the cost of litigation to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, petitioner is a medical professional who has completed his M.B.B.S. degree from Government Chengalpattu Medical College and Hospital, Tamil Nadu, securing 68.7% marks, and is presently pursuing his postgraduate studies as a Postgraduate Junior Resident in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raipur. According to the case of the petitioner, he appeared in the final theory examination conducted in the month of December, 2023; however, he was deliberately declared unsuccessful by the respondent authorities on account of personal vendetta and pre-existing disputes. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred W.P. (C) No. 283 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court, which is presently pending consideration. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner obtained copies of his answer scripts under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and, upon perusal thereof, was utterly surprised to discover several serious irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of the examination. It is the specific case of the petitioner that certain questions in Paper-I and Paper-II were asked beyond the prescribed syllabus and, 4 further, some of the questions purportedly forming part of Paper-I and Paper-II actually pertained to the syllabus of Paper-III and Paper-IV. It is further submitted that, contrary to the prescribed examination scheme, the examination was conducted for 100 marks instead of 80 marks and no internal assessment was conducted, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has further alleged that his answer scripts were evaluated by only one evaluator, despite the applicable examination procedure requiring the answer scripts to be subjected to evaluation by two evaluators; however, the answer scripts obtained by the petitioner clearly disclosed that the same had been evaluated by only one person. Thus, alleging serious procedural irregularities, arbitrary evaluation, deviation from the prescribed examination scheme, and consequential prejudice caused to him, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final result has been prepared illegally by evaluating the theory examination out of 100 marks, whereas, as per the applicable Academic Rules, the theory examination ought to have been assessed out of 80 marks and the remaining 20% marks were required to be awarded on the basis of internal assessment of both theory and practical performance. It is submitted that had the internal assessment marks been duly taken into consideration, the petitioner would have secured sufficient marks to qualify the examination. It is 5 further submitted that several questions asked in Paper-I, pertaining to Basic Sciences and Allied Subjects as applicable to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, and Paper-II, pertaining to Clinical Forensic Medicine, Forensic Psychiatry, and Medical Ethics and Law (Medical Jurisprudence), were outside the prescribed syllabus and, in fact, related to the subjects covered under Paper-III, namely Forensic Pathology and Medical Toxicology, and Paper-IV, namely Applied Aspects of Clinical Disciplines, Forensic Sciences, and Recent Advances in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. Learned counsel further submits that, in terms of the Academic Rules, 2021 and the applicable Prospectus, only 80 marks were required to be awarded on the basis of the theory examination, whereas the remaining 20% marks were to be assessed through internal assessment for both theory and practical, which has not been done in the present case. It is further contended that under the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 framed by the National Medical Commission, the answer scripts are required to be evaluated by two examiners; however, upon obtaining copies of the answer scripts under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner discovered that his answer scripts had been evaluated by only one examiner. Learned counsel also submits that Regulation 8.4 provides that the University shall conduct not more than two examinations in a year for any subject at an interval of not less than four months and not more than six months. It is submitted 6 that, despite the petitioner being the only candidate, the respondent authorities ignored the mandatory provisions governing the conduct of the examination. It is, therefore, prayed that the theory examination conducted between 05.12.2023 and 11.12.2023 and the practical examination conducted between 13.12.2023 and 22.12.2023 be set aside, or in the alternative, the respondents be directed to award bonus marks for the questions allegedly asked beyond the prescribed syllabus and to re-evaluate the petitioner's answer scripts strictly in accordance with the governing rules by assessing 80 marks on the basis of theory and awarding the remaining 20% marks on the basis of internal assessment of both theory and practical. It is further submitted that this Court, by interim order dated 19.02.2024, directed the respondents not to conduct the supplementary examination of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, in which the petitioner was the sole candidate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the examination was conducted fairly and strictly in accordance with the guidelines and procedure prescribed by AIIMS, Raipur. It was contended that the question papers were prepared and moderated by the competent authorities, the evaluation of answer scripts was carried out as per the approved guidelines, and the internal assessment marks were considered only for determining the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the final examination. It was further submitted that the petitioner 7 has wrongly relied upon the guidelines of the National Medical Commission, whereas the examination was conducted in accordance with the protocol followed by AIIMS, Raipur. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner relates to the conduct and evaluation of the final postgraduate examination in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology conducted by AIIMS, Raipur, wherein the petitioner was the sole candidate. The petitioner appeared in the examination conducted on the scheduled dates. It is the petitioner's case that several questions included in Paper-I and Paper-II were beyond the prescribed syllabus and, in fact, pertained to Paper-III and Paper-IV. The second grievance of the petitioner is that his answer scripts were evaluated by only one examiner, although they were required to be evaluated by two examiners. The third grievance relates to the assessment of the theory examination out of 100 marks instead of 80 marks, without awarding 20% marks on the basis of internal assessment for both theory and practical while preparing the final result. There shall be at least four examiners in each subject at an examination out of which two shall be external examiners. 8 7. From the syllabus placed on record, it appears that 20% marks are required to be awarded on the basis of internal assessment for both theory and practical, as reflected in the circular dated 22.06.2015 issued by AIIMS, Raipur. The respondents have also placed on record the Curriculum for the Postgraduate Course, namely M.D. (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology), and Agenda Item: AC-02/2007 relating to the eligibility criteria for postgraduate examiners at AIIMS, Raipur, wherein it has been specifically provided that there shall be at least four examiners in each subject at an examination out of which two shall be external examiners. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner deserves to be examined by the competent respondent authorities and appropriate directions are required to be issued for redressal of the same. 9. Accordingly, while disposing of the present writ petition, the respondent authorities are directed to re-evaluate the petitioner's answer scripts in accordance with the governing rules through an independent panel, while also considering the award of 20% marks towards internal assessment for both theory and practical examination. 10. From the circular governing internal assessment for postgraduate students issued by AIIMS, New Delhi, it appears that 20% marks 9 have been earmarked towards internal assessment for both theory and practical in the M.D./M.S./M.D.S. programmes. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner was the sole candidate, the petitioner's answer scripts deserve to be re- evaluated strictly in accordance with the prescribed syllabus as well as Agenda Item: AC-02/2007, according to which there shall be at least four examiners in each subject at an examination out of which two shall be external examiners. 11. The aforesaid exercise of revaluation be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat