1 CGHC010327042026 2026:CGHC:42270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 261 of 2026 1 - All India Institute Of Medical Science, Raipur Through Its Director, Great Eastern Road, Opposite Gurudwara, Aiims Campus, Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 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 - All India Institute Of Medical Science Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar, Ansari Nagar East, New Delhi, Delhi 110029 ... Petitioner(s) versus 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,- 492001 (C.G.) 2 - National Medical Commission Pocket - 14, Sector -8, Dwarka Phase - 1, New Delhi. 110077. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri P Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Fouziya Mirza, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review/recall of order dated 10.07.2026 passed in WPC No.1038 of 2024. 2. WPC No.1038 of 2024 was filed by Respondent No.1 herein for the following AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.30 17:58:08 +0530 2 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 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." 3. In the writ petition, petitioner/Respondent No.1 herein submitted that the final result was prepared contrary to the applicable Academic Rules, as the theory examination was evaluated out of 100 marks instead of 80 marks, with the remaining 20% required to be awarded through internal assessment of theory and practical performance. It was contended that, if properly assessed, the petitioner would have qualified. It was further submitted that several questions in Papers I and II were beyond the prescribed syllabus and related to subjects covered under Papers III and IV. The petitioner also submitted that, contrary to the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, his answer scripts were evaluated by only one examiner instead of two. It was also contended that Regulation 8.4, prescribing the permissible frequency and interval of examinations, was not followed. The petitioner sought setting aside of the examinations held from 05.12.2023 to 22.12.2023, or 3 alternatively, award of appropriate bonus marks and re-evaluation in accordance with the governing rules. By interim order dated 19.02.2024, this Court had directed the respondents not to conduct the supplementary examination, the petitioner being the sole candidate. 4. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4/ petitioners herein 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/Respondent No.1 herein eligibility to appear in the final examination. It was further submitted that the petitioner/Respondent No.1 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. This Court after hearing the parties at length pronounced the judgment on 10.07.2026 and observed 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/petitioners herein 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 4 examination out of which two shall be external examiners. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner/Respondent No.1 deserves to be examined by the competent respondent authorities and appropriate directions are required to be issued for redressal of the same. Accordingly, this Court directed 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. 6. Further, this Court observed that from the circular governing internal assessment for postgraduate students issued by AIIMS, New Delhi, it appears that 20% marks 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/Respondent No.1 was the sole candidate, the petitioner's/Respondent No.1 herein 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. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that order under review overlooks the Academic Committee Resolution dated 18.03.2017 (Agenda Item AC-02/07) which specifically prescribes the procedure governing postgraduate examinations, preparation of question papers, appointment of examiners and evaluation process. The said document formed part of the 5 record but has not been considered while issuing the impugned directions. The direction awarding 20% internal assessment marks proceeds an apparent misconception that such marks necessarily form part of the final theory marks. The material placed on record by the Petitioners specifically demonstrated that internal assessment is meant for determining eligibility to appear in the examination and not for addition to the final theory score under the AIIMS, Raipur academic regulations. Order under review inadvertently applies the National Medical Commission Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations as if they automatically govern the evaluation methodology adopted by AIIMS, Raipur without considering the statutory autonomy enjoyed by AIIMS, Raipur in conducting examinations under its approved Academic Rules and Procedures. While recording that questions were outside the syllabus, the impugned order does not consider the review petitioners' specific pleadings that the question papers had been prepared by External Examiners and duly moderated by the Chairman of the Board of Examiners in accordance with the approved academic procedure. The questions asked in Paper-I and Paper-II were as per the Curriculum of Post Graduate Course MD ) (Forensic Medicine and Toxicology), AIIMS Raipur. The omission to consider this undisputed material on record has resulted in an apparent error. The impugned directions overlook the settled principle that judicial review in academic matters is limited and ordinarily courts do not substitute their views for that of expert academic bodies in matters relating to evaluation and conduct of examinations except where statutory violations mala fides established. Reivew petitioner is not seeking rehearing of the writ petition on merits. The present Review Petition is confined only to correction 6 of the errors apparent on the face of the record and consideration of material statutory provisions and academic regulations which have inadvertently remained unnoticed while passing the impugned order. The impugned order proceeds on a fundamental factual misconception that AIIMS Delhi's circular dated 22.06.2015 is applicable to AIIMS Raipur, whereas both are autonomous separate institutes of National Importance established under the AIIMS Act, 1956. The Court's reliance on the said circular in Para 7 of the impugned order to direct award of 20% internal assessment marks constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, as AIIMS Raipur has consistently followed its own distinct examination pattern since inception, where internal assessment is only a qualifying requirement for eligibility to appear in the final examination and is never added to the final theory marks. 8. Counsel for Respondent No.1 would support the order under review. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the order dated 10.07.2026 passed in WPC No.1038 of 2024. 10.The principal contention of the review petitioners is that the Academic Committee Resolution dated 18.03.2017 (Agenda Item AC-02/07), governing the postgraduate examination procedure at AIIMS, Raipur, was not considered while passing the order under review. It is further contended that the circular dated 22.06.2015 relied upon by this Court pertains to AIIMS, New Delhi and is not applicable to AIIMS, Raipur, and that internal assessment marks were intended only for determining eligibility to appear in the final examination. 7 11.These submissions, however, essentially seek reconsideration of the material and contentions already available on record and considered while adjudicating the writ petition. The review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction merely because another view of the material placed before the Court is possible. A review is maintainable only where an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated, or where other grounds recognised in law for exercise of review jurisdiction are made out. 12. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 13.The order under review was passed after considering the relevant academic material placed before the Court, including the provisions relating to internal assessment and the prescribed composition of the Board of Examiners. The direction for re-evaluation was issued having regard to the circumstances of the case and the governing academic requirements noticed therein. The review petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any patent error, self- 8 evident mistake, or omission of such nature as would warrant exercise of the limited jurisdiction of review. 14.The contention regarding the applicability or otherwise of the circular dated 22.06.2015, the interpretation of the Academic Committee Resolution dated 18.03.2017, the purpose of internal assessment, the procedure adopted for preparation and moderation of question papers, and the manner in which the examination was conducted would, in substance, require re-appreciation of the record and adjudication of disputed academic issues. Such an exercise falls outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction. 15.The contention that the examination was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by AIIMS, Raipur and that the question papers were prepared and moderated by the competent authorities was a matter available to the review petitioners at the stage of hearing of the writ petition. Failure of the Court to accept a particular contention or to draw a conclusion favourable to a party cannot, by itself, constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. The order dated 10.07.2026 passed in WPC No.1038 of 2024 shall remain undisturbed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash