Karnataka High Court
Mr Thejaswi Ketham vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 1 February, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
1
WP No. 18832 of 2022
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.18832 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MR. THEJASWI KETHAM
S/O. DR. KETHAM
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT KETHAMS HOSPITAL
PVT. LTD. VIDHYARANYAPURA
NANJAPPA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU 560097
PURSUING 2ND YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTER
2. MR. AYUSHMAN SINGH
S/O. MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEW MINAL JK ROAD
BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH
(462021)
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS AT
Digitally SHRIDEVI MEDICAL COLLEGE
signed by B TUMKUR
LAVANYA
Location:
HIGH 3. MR. BLESSON JACOB
COURT OF S/O. MR. JACOB KUTTY
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 438 D, SECTOR - 30
FARIDABAD, HARYANA, 121003
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS AT
SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH
HOSPITAL
2
WP No. 18832 of 2022
4. MR. NISHAL KUMAR R
S/O. RAVI M S
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT SRI RANGADHAMA
BEHIND MDCC BANK
KRISHNARAJPET TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT 571426
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS AT
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
5. MR. DARSHAN Y
S/O. MR. YUVARAJA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT MURUNDI B THANDYA
MURUNDI POST, ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT -573122
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS AT
HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES
6. MR. PAVAN K
S/O. BRAMHAIAH K.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT #159, 4TH CROSS
SHAMARAJAPURA LAYOUT, NEAR
SHASHANK AIKHYA AMBHABHAVANI
TEMPLE ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA
POST, BENGALURU - 560097
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT HASSAN INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
7. MS.THOKCHOM SUPRIYA DEVI
D/O. THOKCHOM SURJIT SINGH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT THINUNGEI AWANG LEIKAI
BISHNUPUR DISTRICT MANIPUR -
795126, PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS
COURSE AT SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES & RESEARCH
HOSPITAL, TUMKUR
3
WP No. 18832 of 2022
8. MR.B.RAMAKANTH REDDY
S/O. B. V. RAMANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT B RAMAKANTH REDDY
S/O. B V RAMANA REDDY
4-10-206/1, PRASHANTHI NAGAR
PULIVENDLA, KADAPA (DIST)
ANDHRA PRADESH -516390
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
9. MR. MOHSIN AL FIRDOSE
KUSTAGI
S/O. MALIK SAB KUSTAGI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT "WARD NUMBER 27
HIREJANTKAL MAIN ROAD
GANGAVATHI -583227"
PURSUING 1ST YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AL-AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL
10. MR. GOKULAPRIYAN K
S/O. KUMARAN S
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT SRI RAMAPERU
APARTMENT KOOTAPALI
THIRUCHENGODE (637214)
PURSUING 1ST YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SRINIVAS MEDICAL COLLEGE
MUKKA, MANGALORE
11. MS.POOJITHA.V
D/O. SRI HARI V
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT G6, VAISHNAVI
HEAVENS APARTMENT
SIDHARTHA COLONY,
RAICHUR - 584101
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
4
WP No. 18832 of 2022
12. MS. AKANSHA VERMA
D/O.MANOJ VERMA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT A/401 ROYAL ARCADE
PIPLOD, SURAT - 395007
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH CENTRE
13. MR. VINAY M ITTAGI
S/O. MALLIKARJUN ITTAGI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.G-4
PARADISE RESIDENCY
VENKATESH NAGAR - 585102
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT KBN MEDICAL COLLEGE
14. MR. AKSHATA ITAGI
S/O. MALLIKARJUN ITTAGI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT BADEKOLL CROSS
HIREBAGEWADI - 591109
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT S. NIJALINGAPPA
MEDICAL COLLEGE
15. MS. SPOORTI HAVARAGI
D/O. SANGANNA HAVARAGI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT "SECTOR NO: 54
PLOT NO: 26/D, NAVANAGAR
BAGALKOT- 587103
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT S.NIJALINGAPPA
MEDICAL COLLEGE
HSK HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587103
5
WP No. 18832 of 2022
16. MR.VIGNESH S BASTI
S/O. SUDARSHAN B BASTI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
LAKSHMESWAR - 582116
PURSUING 2ND YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT GADAG INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES
17. MR. U. MANIKANTA
S/O. U CHANDRASEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
"ARYAN FOUNTAIN SQUARE,
SARJAPUR ROAD
ATTIBELE -562107
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT THE OXFORD MEDICAL COLLEGE
& RESEARCH CENTRE
18. MR. VIKRAMSING RAJA
S/O. AMARSING
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT BAGALKOT DIST.
MUDHOL TALUK PIN NO-587313
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AKASH MEDICAL COLLEGE
19. MS. SPURTI SANJAY
KOTENNAVAR
D/O. SANJAY KOTENNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT LIG 209, ADARSH
NAGAR NEAR CENTRAL BUS STOP
VIJAYAPUR - 586103
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL
6
WP No. 18832 of 2022
20. MS. JAYSHREE M
D/O. MUNISWAMY G
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT SRI SATHYA SAI LAYOUT
HOODI, BENGALURU - 560048
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
21. MR. BOMMIDENI SAITEJA
S/O. MR. SURENDAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT B-401, ASPEN BLOCK ,
BRIGADE ORCHIDS , DEVANAHALLI
PURSUING 2ND YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
22. MR. PATHAPALLY
SANKEERTHREDDY
S/O. SRINIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT H. NO 1-1,
CHINTHAGUDEM VILLAGE, BURGUL
SHADNAGAR
PURSUING 2ND YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
RAICHUR
23. MS. DEEPIKA V
D/O. VENKATARAMANAIAH A.
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT #4, 3RD CROSS
VARANASI ROAD, JAYSHREE
LAYOUT, JINKETHIMMANAHALLI
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560016
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT RAJARAJESWARI MEDICAL
COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
7
WP No. 18832 of 2022
24. MS. SHREYA PUJERI
D/O. ULAVAYYA PUJERI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
SDM MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL
DHARWAD-580009
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SDM MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
HOSPITAL
25. MS. UJWALA K. S.
D/O. SHANKARAPPA V.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT GANDHINAGAR
2ND CROSS
TIPTUR - 572201
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT M S RAMAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE
26. MR. G. SANDEEP TEJA
S/O. G SRINIVASA RAO
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT LV HEIGHTS PLOT
NO.205, MARUTHI NAGAR MAIN
ROAD PATTABIPURAM
GUNTUR - 522006
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
27. MR. SUMANTH REDDY
S/O. SRIKANT REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 8/109/2, SHIVARAM
TALKIES ROAD, BANAGAPALLI
NANDYAL DIST. AP
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
8
WP No. 18832 of 2022
28. MR. B. A. PRANAV
S/O. B. N. SESHADRI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT D2 , SV RESIDENCY,
NANDI LAYOUT, HAVAMBAVI,
BALLARI - 583103
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES, BALLARI
29. MR. RAGA MOUNI SAI GEETHA
S/O. LINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT "VILLA 42, CHAITANYA
LA GROOVE, DREAM MEADOWS
COLONY, NEAR RYAN
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
BROOKFIELD,
BENGALURU- 560037"
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE
30. MS. PREETHU M. M.
D/O. M C MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT#52/2, 2ND CROSS
KIRANGOOR NEW EXTENSION
SRP TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
31. MS. J. TARUNI
S/O. J. VENKAT REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT MAYURI MARG
BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD - 500016
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
9
WP No. 18832 of 2022
32. MR. PETER SURAJ JOSEPH
S/O. JOSEPH RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 36, 4TH CROSS
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560095
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT FATHER MULLER MEDICAL
COLLEGE
33. MS. RIFA MARYAM
D/O. ABU THALHA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT OLD NO 4, NEW NO.3
VADAMARAKAYAR STREET
CHENNAI - 600001, TAMIL NADU
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE
VIJAYAPURA
34. MR. BHAVISH M.
S/O. MANJUNATH C.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.175, 6TH MAIN
1ST B CROSS, REMCO LAYOUT,
HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND
STAGE, BENGALURU - 560104
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT B R AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE
35. MR. RAKESH KUMAR
S/O. SANTURAM
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT VPO JANDWA, TEHSIL-
RATANGARH, DISTRICT-CHURU
PIN CODE-331022, RAJASTHAN
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
10
WP No. 18832 of 2022
36. MS. MANISHA
D/O. JASWANTH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT
BEHIND CANARA BANK TARA
COMPLEX, BESIDE VEER
GANGADHAR HOSPITAL
SINDHANUR - 584128
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SSIMS & RC DAVANGERE
37. MR. VARUN VENKATESH
S/O. VENKATESH T.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT SRI SAPTHAGIRI
VIDYALAYA, GOWNIPALLI-563161
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SSIMS AND RC, DAVANGERE
38. MS. SANGAMITRA D. S.
D/O. SOMANNA J.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT LR BHAVAN
ARUVATHOKLU ROAD, GONIKOPPAL
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
39. MS. BOYAPATI SAI CHARITHA
D/O. B. SANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2/336
SOCIETY COLONY, COLONY ROAD,
MADANAPALLE CHITTOOR DIST.,
ANDHRA PRADESH -517325
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH HOSPITAL
11
WP No. 18832 of 2022
40. MS. KAVYASHREE CHAWHAN
D/O. SHARANAPPA CHAWHAN
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT SWAGAT COLONY GDA
LAYOUT NEAR DOMINANT SCHOOL
UDNOOR ROA, GULBARGA - 585102
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT MAHADEVAPPA RAMPURE
MEDICAL COLLEGE
41. MS. SOUJANYA CHIKARADDI
D/O. BASAVARAJ CHIKARADDI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT "SHRI ISHWAR KRUPA
PLOT NO.24,25 AISHWARYA NAGAR
ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYPUR - 586103
PURSUING 3RD YEAR AT
S NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE
42. MS. ANINDITA BHOWMIK
D/O. ASISH BHOWMIK
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT JAGATPUR
ABHOYNAGAR, AGARTALA
TRIPURA WEST -799005
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
43. MS. GAYATRI KRISHNA E.,
D/O. E.R BALAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT EDASSERY VALAPPIL
HOUSE POTTORE P.O POTTORE
THRISSUR, KERALA PIN:680581
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
SHIVAMOGGA
12
WP No. 18832 of 2022
44. MS. PRARTHANA M R
D/O. M V RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT #96,VIJAYNAGAR
4TH STAGE, 1ST PHASE
MYSURU-570030
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE
45. MS. PRATHVI ALVA
D/O. JAGADISH ALVA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT ALVA'S RESIDENCE
PANELA PAJEER POST & VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
BANTWAL TALUQ 574199
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
46. MR. HARISH S M
S/O SHIVAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT HARISH SM
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
PRASANNAHALLI
DEVANAHALLI - 562110
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE
47. MR. RAHUL
S/O. SATPAL SINGH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE OF
HIRANANDANI CALGARY - 562110
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE
13
WP No. 18832 of 2022
48. MR. ADHITYA HB
S/O. C BABU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT 10TH CROSS, OPP. TO APR
KALYANAMANTAPA BEGUR MAIN
ROAD, HONGASANDRA
BENGALURU-560068
PURSUING 4TH YEAR COLLEGE AT
SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES
49. MS. VAISHNAVI NAIK
D/O. MANOJ NAIK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT KBN MEDICAL
COLLEGE GIRLS HOSTEL
KALBURGI PIN:585102
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT KHAJA BANDE NAWAZ, KALBURGI
50. MR. HIBA M K
D/O. BASHEER M.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT MUTHACHIKUNNUMAL
(HO), VANIMAL, KODIYURA(PO)
KALLACHI(VIA), CALICUT - 673506
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
AT KANAACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
51. MS. SINCHANA U SHETTY
D/O MR. UDAYAKUMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT CHETHANA GIRLS HOSTEL
BIMS BELAGAVI SADASHIV NAGAR
NEAR CHENNAMMA CIRCLE 590001
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
BELAGAVI, INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE COLLEGE
14
WP No. 18832 of 2022
52. MS. DEVIKA NAMBIAR K
D/O MR. M.AMBUJAKSHAN NAMBIAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
"DEVIKA NIVAS" AYAMPARA,
MARAMKAVU,P.O PERIYA,
KASARAGOD, KERALA 671316
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH
CENTRE COLLEGE
53. MS. SAI TEJASWINI N
D/O MR. NAGESHWAR RAO N
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT ROOM NO:207,
3RD FLOOR, VAISHNAVU
APARTMENTS, ADJ.NAVODAYA
MEDICAL COLLEGE
RAICHUR-584103
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
54. MR. VRISHABH H K GOWDA
S/O MR. KIRAN KUMAR H G
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT #217, 11TH MAIN
AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI
BENGALURU-560061
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
55. MS. R.P.GUNIKA JAIN
D/O MR. PARSHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT HINDUPUR
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515201
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN AKASH
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
15
WP No. 18832 of 2022
56. MS. SHRUTI RATHOD
D/O MR. SOMANATH RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT 219, VIVEKANAND NAGAR
VIJAYAPUR TALUK
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT
VIJAYAPUR - 586109
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
GADAG INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
57. MR. PRASHANT MEENA
S/O MR. PANMAL MEENA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT MAHAVEER COLONY
NEAR NEW NAGAR PALIKA AKLERA
JHALAWAR, RAJASTHAN 336033
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
58. MS. DIVYA CH
D/O MR. NAGAMUNESHWAR RAO CH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT SRI CHENNA BASAVA
NAGAR, PWD CAMP
SINDHANUR - 584128
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
RAICHUR
59. MR. KHURSHID ALAM BIRAJDAR
S/O MR. SAIFAN MULUK BIRAJDAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT H.NO 11-1041/34/JA6
MADINA COLONY, M.S.K.MILL'S
KALABURAGI - 585103
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
GULBARGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES, KALABURAGI
16
WP No. 18832 of 2022
60. MR. MOHAMMED ZAKI
S/O MR. MOHAMMED TAUQUEER
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS
SRK GARDEN, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU- 560041
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
61. MR. K TOUHEED UR REHMAN
S/O MR. K MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT ASHRAYA COLONY
DESHNUR
SIRUGUPPA TALUK - 583 121
BELLARY DIST
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
VIJAYNAGAR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
62. MR. MOHAMED AZARUDEEN M
S/O MR. MOHAMED IBRAHIM A.B
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 58, EAST STREET
MANGALAMPET
CUDDALORE DT - 606 104
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
THE OXFORD MEDICAL
COLLEGE HOSPITAL
63. MR. ABHISHEK M N
S/O MR. NAGARAJU M T
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT #85 , 2ND CROSS
1ST MAIN , KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT
BENGALURU NORTH - 560057
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE
17
WP No. 18832 of 2022
64. MS. ROMITA KUMARI
D/O MR. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT CD 100, DDA FLATS, 3RD
FLOOR, HARI NAGAR, DELHI-110064
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
KVG MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
HOSPITAL
65. MS. HIBA UVAIZ
D/O MR. HUVAIZ M.H.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT MINA PUNNAPRA P.O.
ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 688004
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN KVG
MEDICAL COLLEGE
66. MR. K. PRADEEP
S/O MR. KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 159/63 AS PETTAI MANI ROAD
NAMAKKAL, PURSUING 3RD YEAR
MBBS IN SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
67. MR. AADIL MUHAMMED BASHEER
S/O MR. A ABDUL BASHEER
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT DARULNAJATH THEVALAKKARA
P.O, KOLLAM KERALA - 690 524
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
68. MR. SYED ABDUL KHADEER
S/O MR. SYED ABDUL SATTAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 2-9-31/1/A MADINA MASJID
MARKET ROAD MAHBUBNAGAR
509001, PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS
IN KHAJA BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
18
WP No. 18832 of 2022
69. MS. MASHABA TANIYA
D/O MR. NAYEEM MIAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO 21/55
WARD NO 16, BESIDE KC STREET
BELLARY - 583 101
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA
BANDA NAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
70. MR. SHUBHAM GARG
S/O MR. LAXMIKANT GARG
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT BYANIYA PADA
HINDAUN CITY
RAJASTHAN - 322 230
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
GULBARGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE, KALABURAGI
71. MS. INSHA ARSHAD
D/O MR. ARSHAD JAMIL AHMAD
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NAUMAN CHAMBER BHIKHANA
PAHARI, P.O MEHENDRU,
PATNA - 800006, BIHAR
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA
BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
72. MS. MITHA M REDDY
D/O MR. MUNIRAJU C
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT MBT RESIDENCY
CHANDAPURA CIRCLE
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU 560099
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
19
WP No. 18832 of 2022
73. MR. SUSHANTH V GOWDA
S/O MR. VISHNU KR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT F244
GOPALA GOWDA BADAVANE
BEHIND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE
SHIMOGA 577205
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
SHAMANUR SHIVASHANKARAPPA
MEDICAL COLLEGE, DAVANGERE
74. MS. SAFHANA BARI
D/O MR. MOHAMMED ABDUL BARI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT HYDERABAD - 500030
PURSUING 3RD YEAR IN KHAJA
BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
75. MS. MALAVIKA PATIL
D/O MR. ASHOKREDDY PATIL
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT HNO:1-11-36/208
OPP RAMESH RESIDENCY
BASAVESHWAR COLONY
LINGSUGUR ROAD
RAICHUR-584101
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
76. MR. SALMAN KHAN
S/O MR. NASEEM ULLAH KHAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT 16-11-16/G/J/102
AFZAL NAGAR MALAKPET
HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 036
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA
BANDA NAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
20
WP No. 18832 of 2022
77. MR. SUHAIL O.
S/O MR. O. ABOOBACKER
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT PAYANINGAL HOUSE
KOZHIKODE - 673019
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN AKASH
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
78. MS. K P ARUN PRATHIJNA
D/O MR. K P YAJNENDRA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
ATHRI HIGHLANDS
OPP HUNDAI SHOW ROOM
KUNTALPADY KARKALA
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE
79. MR. MANIKANDAN R
S/O MR. E V RAVEENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT
EDAVAN EDATHIL VEEDU , PO
KURUMATHUR VIA KARIMBAM,
KANNUR
KERALA - 670 142
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
80. MR. BOOMIREDDI SREENIVASA
PRANEETH
S/O MR. VENKAT
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT
ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 005.
PURSUING 3RD YEAR IN THE OXFORD
MEDICAL COLLEGE
21
WP No. 18832 of 2022
81. MS. MADHU GUPTA
D/O MR. MANOJ KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT BGS GIRLS
HOSTEL 560060
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN BGS
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
82. MR. SAMEER M JAMEDAR
S/O MR. MOULA HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT JAMEDAR COMPOUND
AZAD CIRCLE, JAWAHAR ROAD
KOPPAL - 583231
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN SDM
COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND
HOSPITAL
83. MR. GOKUL GOPAL V
S/O MR. VENUGOPALAN NAIR S
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT TRA66, MV LANE
VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM
KERALA 695013
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
84. MR. YAJUVENDRASINH VAGHELA
S/O MR. AJITSINH VAGHELA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT PLOT NO D/6
GREEN CITY SOCIETY, SECTOR 26
GANDHINAGAR 382028
GUJARAT
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
22
WP No. 18832 of 2022
85. MR. BASHAVANI RAGHAVENDRA
S/O MR. BASHAVANI
RADHAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT 10-4-99/1/B/1
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR COLONY
NEAR RAMREDDY EYE HOSPITAL
ENUGONDA 509001
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
86. MR. RAVI SANKAR PATNAIK
S/O MR. GANAPATHI PATNAIK
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT HIG:'78'..
'VASAVI NILAYAM'
SAGAR NAGAR
VISHAKAPATNAM, A.P 530007
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN SREE
SIDDHARTHA MEDICAL COLLEGE
87. MR. MAAZ KHAN M B
S/O MR. M BASHEER KHAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT DAVANAGERE -577002
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
SHAMANUR SHIVASHANKARAPPA
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
88. MR. YAASHVANTHIRAAN
PUVANTHIRAN
S/O MR. PUVANTHIRAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2
SECTION 11/6C, 46200 PETALING
JAYA SELANGOR, MALAYSIA
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN SS
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
23
WP No. 18832 of 2022
89. MS. SHEETAL PALLA
D/O MR. SHARANAPPA PALLA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT OPP MAHARISHI VIDYA
MANDIR SCHOOL KUSNOOR ROAD
KALABURAGI 585101
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
90. MR. VALABOJU RUTHVIK
S/O MR. V MOHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHAMBUNIPET
WARANGAL, TELANGANA - 506 002
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN AKASH
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
91. MR. MOINAK PANDA
S/O MR. DEBASIS PANDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT MAHAVEER CEDAR
APARTMENT, AGB LAYOUT
CHIKKASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560090
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
92. MR. SARANG S
S/O MR. P V SURENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT SARANGAM
NEAR ANTHOOR LP SCHOOL
THALIYIL, KANNUR, PO
KALLIASERRI 670562
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE
24
WP No. 18832 of 2022
93. MR. DARSHAN S M
S/O MR. S MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT #1866/23
17TH CROSS OLD POLICE STATION
ROAD, VMG LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR
DAVANGERE - 577 005
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS IN
JJM MEDICAL COLLEGE
94. MR. P MARUTI
S/O MR. M PALANISAMY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT GANDHINAGAR
SUNDHARAPURAM
COIMBATORE - 641 024
PURSUING 4TH YEAR IN MYSORE
MEDICAL COLLEGE
95. MR. SHAHABUDDIN MUNSHI
S/O MR. MOHAMMED RAFI MUNSHI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT #42, NOOR E MAJEED,
2ND CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR
(CHAITANYA NAGAR), R N SHETTY
ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030.
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
96. MR. MUPPALA ABHISHEK
CHOWDHARY
S/O MR. MUPPALA JANARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAMAN BHAVAN
ANUSHA NAHAR
NEAR NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
RAICHUR - 584 103
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
25
WP No. 18832 of 2022
97. MR. VISHESH KUMAR
S/O MR.VIRENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT BY PASS NEAR
PARSHURAM CHOWK, ANAJ MANDI
SHIKARPUR DISTRICT
BULANDSHAHR
UTTAR PRADESH - 203395
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
S.NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND HSK HOSPITAL
98. MR. SHARANABASAPPA
S/O MR. KASHINATH MOTAKPALLI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.66
GODUTAI NAGAR
NEAR SHIV MANDIR
SHARAN NILAYA
KALABURAGI - 585102
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION MEDICAL COLLEGE
GULBARGA
99. MS. SHIVANI RACHATTE
D/O MR. JAGANNATH RACHATTE
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.48
SWASTIK NAGAR, SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA - 585 105
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN KHAJA
BANDANAWAZ INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE GULBARGA
26
WP No. 18832 of 2022
100. MR. MOHAMMED SHIBIL M
S/O MR. POCKER HAJI M
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHUNDAKKAD HOUSE
OZHUKUR P.O, MALAPPURAM
KERALA - 673642
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS IN
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
101. MR. KAMITHAKAR
NAGABHUSHANA SANDEEP
S/O. MR. K.P.NAGABHUSHAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT 6-197
SRI PANDURANGA TEXTILES
MAIN ROAD, ROLLA MANDAL
AND POST MADAKASIRA TQ A.P .
515321 PURSUING YEAR 4TH YEAR
MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE
SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTER
BENGALURU
102. MR. THEJASWI V T
S/O. MR. TITUS VARGHESE
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT SUDHAMA HOUSE
KUTTRUPADY VILLAGE AND POST
PUTTUR .TQ .D.K
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KARWAR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES KARWAR
103. MR.ANJIR RAJA ALAM
S/O.MR.ABDUR RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT LICHUBARI, MANIK
NAGAR.JORHAT, ASSAM
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE AL AMEEN MEDICAL
COLLEGE, VIJAYPUR-586108
27
WP No. 18832 of 2022
104. MISS. URVASHI SANDILYA
D/O. MR. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAJENDRA NAGAR
ROAD NO 4 , NEAR SHUBHA GIRLS
HOSTEL PATNA, BIHAR - 800016
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
RESEARCH CENTRE
105. MR. AKULA GNANESWAR KUMAR
S/O. MR. AKULA MALLIKARJUN A
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 3/423, PUTTAPARTHI
ROAD, KOTHACHERUVU
SATHYASAI DISTRICT - 515133
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
106. MR. KARTHIK K
S/O. MR. KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT #143, VIGNESHWARA
NILAYA, 6TH CROSS, DEVARAJ URS
NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA 577204
PURSUING YEAR 4TH YEAR MBBS
COURSE IN COLLEGE BIDAR
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
BIDAR
107. MR. VIKAS MEENA
S/O. MR. RAMDAYAL MEENA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT GANDHINAGAR
MAGRA PUNJLA, JODHPUR
RAJASTHAN - 342 304
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KARWAR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES, KARWAR
28
WP No. 18832 of 2022
108. MR. SYED AQSA K S
S/O. MR. SYED SIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT D/NO 19/148 MUSLIM
BLOCK K R NAGAR 571602
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
SHIVAMOGGA
109. MR. ASHIK SHETTY
S/O. MR. ARUN KUMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2-1-B-1 ,
KOPPALA, HALEANGADI,
MANGALORE, DK -574146
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE FATHER MULLER
MEDICAL COLLEGE
110. MISS. VAKA LAVANYA
D/O. MR. V. NARASAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT HNO: 15-8-573
SRINAGAR COLONY ROAD NO : 1
NEAR MAMATHA MEDICAL COLLEGE
BESIDE CHERUKURI APARTMENT
ROTARY NAGAR KHAMMAM
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE THE OXFORD MEDICAL
COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH
CENTER
111. MISS. RESHMA M.R
D/O. MR. C.RAVI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHARAN RESIDENCY
KUVEMPU NAGAR, GULBARGA
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KHAJA BANDA NAWAZ
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
29
WP No. 18832 of 2022
112. MR. THISHON KUMAR TS
S/O. MR. THILAK KUMAR PCN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT SWAMIYARMADAM
PILAVILAI, KATTATHURAI (P.O)
K.K DIST, 629158, PURSUING 4TH
YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE
SUBBAIAH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES
113. MR. LOKESH
S/O. MR. NAGSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS
SAJJANSHETTY NIVAS RAM NAGAR
CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR 585401
PURSUING YEAR MBBS 4TH YEAR
COURSE IN COLLEGE
ADICHUNCHANAGIRI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
114. MR. B.JEREMIAH RAKESH
S/O. MR. R.BOTHIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 1265
DIVYASHREE REPUBLIC
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
115. MR. IMAYABARATHI
S/O. MR. MURUGESAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT L353, CEDAR BLOCK
BRIGADE ORCHARDS DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU-562110
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
30
WP No. 18832 of 2022
116. MISS. KRUTHIKA B NAYAK
D/O. MR. B K BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT JANAKPURI
NEW DELHI: 110058
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE BASAVESHWARA
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
117. MR. PRINCE OOMMEN
S/O. MR. OOMMEN MATHEW
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT MALIYIL PREM NIVAS,
HILLVIEW GARDENS
KANGIRATHUMOOD JUNCTION
ALLAPUZHA DISTRICT
POOMALA P.O 689520
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE MS RAMIAH MEDICAL
COLLEGE
118. MISS. JINAL DAXINI
D/O. MR. NIKHIL DAXINI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT #306, HOYSALA
DREAMZ, JALADARSINI LAYOUT
SANJAY NAGAR
BENGALURU 560094
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE M.S. RAMAIAH MEDICAL
COLLEGE
119. MR. SHANKAR ALUR
S/O. MR. A.B.NAGABHUSHAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT D.NO:-4155/2
7TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS
KUVEMPUNAGAR, M.C.C 'B' BLOCK
DAVANGERE
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE J.J.M MEDICAL COLLEGE
31
WP No. 18832 of 2022
120. MISS. SOORA CHANDANA
D/O. MR. SOORA
CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT 18-35-S4-171 1ST
FLOORS RAMCHANDRA NAGAR
KT ROAD TIRUPATHI CHITTOR
DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
121. MR. SYED ZEESHAN QUADRI
S/O. MR. SYED ZAHEERULLAH
QUADRI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT KHAJA COLONY, BADA ROZA
NEAR BI BI RAZA DEGREE COLLEGE
KALABURAGI 585 104
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KHAJA BANDANAWAZ
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
122. MISS. SAUMYA KUMARI
D/O. MR. SHAMBHU SINGH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT BHUVANA PG SAHAKAR NAGAR
560092, PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS
COURSE IN COLLEGE AKASH
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH CENTER,
DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU
123. MISS. KUMARI AMISHA
D/O. MR. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT MAA PANCHA DEVI HOSPITAL
LINE BAZAR PURNIA BIHAR 854301
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE SAPHTHAGIRI
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH CENTRE
32
WP No. 18832 of 2022
124. MISS. MRINALINI SHARMA
D/O. MR. RAJA RAM SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT
TRIVENI GIRLS HOSTEL, MSR NAGAR
MATHIKERE, 560054
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE MS RAMAIAH MEDICAL
COLLEGE
125. MR. INDRAJEET TYAGI
S/O. MR. SURESHCHANDRA TYAGI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT
10/36 VITTHAL NAGAR
KALABURGI 585103
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE MAHADEVAPPA
RAMPURE MEDICAL COLLEGE
126. MR. SHRINATH HADAKAR
S/O. MR. MARUTI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT SAPTHAGIRI MEDICAL
BOYS HOSTEL, BENGALURU 560090
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE SAPTHAGIRI INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BANGALORE
127. MR. ABHISHEK VAISHNAV
S/O. MR. DAMODAR DAS VAISHNAV
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT 64 SHIV COLONY
SAVARIYA ROAD NEAR
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
RAS 306101
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE NAVODAYA MEDICAL
COLLEGE
33
WP No. 18832 of 2022
128. MISS. PRATHIKSHA BM
D/O. MR. MANJUNATH BN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT BANGLORE RURAL
DEVANAHALLI BRIGADE ORCHIDS
BANYAN G BLOCK, PURSUING 4TH
YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE
AKASH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES
129. MR. ASLAM MOHAMMED K
S/O. MR. P. S KOCHU MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT
#7, ROCHIE ENCLAVE
BANJARA MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE
HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KANACHUR INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
130. MR. PRANAI ROY
S/O. MR. ROY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO: A9, CIDBI
CEDAR APARTMENTS, EVERGREEN
ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680005
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KANACHUR INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
131. MISS. MADHUVADHANI M
D/O. MR. P MURUGAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT 117, MAHAVEER
LAKES, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
KENGERI, BENGALURU 560060
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE BGS GLOBAL INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
34
WP No. 18832 of 2022
132. MR. MILIND GOSAI
S/O. MR. MANISH GOSAI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT D302, ASPEN BLOCK, BRIGADE
ORCHARDS, DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU 562110
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE AKASH INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE & RESEARCH
CENTRE
133. MISS. TANVI GOEL
D/O. MR. RAJEEV GOEL
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT 14-15, PUNJABI BAGH AMBALA
CANTT, HARYANA 133001
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTER
134. MR. KATIKA SOHAIL
S/O. MR. K.SOFIRAJAK
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT H.NO:- 7/115
SIDDAPPAPALEM STREET
KOSIGI MANDAL
ANDHRA PRADESH 518313
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE DR. B R AMBEDKAR
MEDICAL COLLEGE
135. MR. ASHIR ABDUL KHADER
S/O. MR. ABDUL KHADER
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT ZION
PERINGATHOOR, KANNUR,
KERALA - 670675
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KANACHUR INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
35
WP No. 18832 of 2022
136. MISS. MOUKTHIKA. M
D/O. MR. M.BUJJIBABU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT 406, VAISHNAVI APARTMENT
NEAR NAVODAYA MEDICAL
COLLEGE, MANTRALAYAM ROAD
RAICHUR - 584103, PURSUING YEAR
4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
137. MR. JITHRAJ P S
S/O.MR.PUSHPARAJAN K
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT SREEJA BHAVAN THEKKINKADU
KALLINGAL NAGAROOR (PO)
ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
KERALA, PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS
COURSE IN COLLEGE SHRIDEVI
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH CENTRE TUMKUR
138. MR. THUSHAR P
S/O. MR. B S PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO 99, 2ND CROSS, L.I.C
LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560098, PURSUING 4TH
YEAR MBBS COURSE IN COLLEGE
KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
139. MISS. ANJALI R NATH
D/O. MR. RAGHU V
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT INDEEVARAM MYTHRI NAGAR
90A ASRAMAM P.O, KOLLAM 691002
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH CENTRE
36
WP No. 18832 of 2022
140. MR. SURENDER S
S/O. MR.TNK SUNDARARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT B - 014, EUPHORIA
SUNCITY APARTMENTS, SARJAPUR
OUTER RING ROAD, IBLUR
BENGALURU- 560102
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
141. MISS. MISBHA NAZ RABBANI
D/O. MR. P MOHAMMED JAVID
RUBBANI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT KBN GIRLS, HOSTEL
RAUZA BURG GULBARGA 585104
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE KHAJA BANDHE NAWAZ
COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
142. MISS. MADHURI REDDY
D/O. R.V.SATHYANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT D/O REDDY VENKATA
SATHYANARAYANA, HOUSE NUMBER
28-11-5 RANGAMTHOTA, MUSLIM
STREET, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
534211, PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS
COURSE IN VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
37
WP No. 18832 of 2022
143. MISS. GOWRI SHANKAR.S
D/O. MR. R.SEKAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT LIG:1147
42ND CROSS, RAYAKOTTA HUDCO
RAYAKOTTA ROAD, HOSUR:635109
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
144. MR. ALISHA ASHOK
S/O. MR. ASHOK KUMAR
LAKSHMANAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT SOORYA PARK NEAR
MUNCIPAL OFFICE MAIN ROAD
ATTINGAL P.O TRIVANDRUM
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
145. MR. VUBBARA SRI CHARAN
S/O. MR. V SUDHAKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT SLV HOMES
BROOKBOND CROSS
WHITEFIELD 560066
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTRE
38
WP No. 18832 of 2022
146. MR. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O. MR. ISHWAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHOBHA NIVAS
GANESH NAGAR, MANNALLI ROAD
BIDAR 585403
PURSUING 4TH YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE BANGALORE MEDICAL
COLLEGE
147. MISS. KATTAMURI BHUVANA
D/O.MR.K CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT- C001, NCC
URBAN SQUARE PARK
UMAMAHESRARAO COLONY
PATTABHIPURAM
GUNTUR - 522 006
PURSUING 3RD YEAR MBBS COURSE
IN COLLEGE SSIMS AND RC
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL
COMMISSION, POCKET - 14,
SECTOR- 8, DWARKA PHASE I
NEW DELHI - 110 077
BY ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
39
WP No. 18832 of 2022
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1-
UNIVERSITY TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATIONS OF
THE SUBJECTS IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
DECLARED TO BE UNSUCCESSFUL IN MBBS (RS3)
EXAMINATIONS OF JULY/AUGUST 2022 IN TERMS OF
REGULATION 13 OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
GRADUATE MEDICAL EXAMINATION REGULATIONS, 1997 AND
A FURTHER DEVIATION VALUATIONS ON THERE BEING A
DIFFERENCE OF MORE THAN 15% MARKS BETWEEN THE
EVALUATORS, IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition are all students of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) course enrolled in different colleges across the State of Karnataka affiliated to respondent No.1 - University. The petitioners are all enrolled themselves prior to the academic year 2019-2020 and hence, they are classified under the 'Revised Scheme - 3' (RS3) batch. Petitioners belong to different academic years of the said MBBS Course.
2. Respondent No.1 - University announced the Undergraduate Theory Examination of RS3 Scheme vide notification bearing No.R(E)/DR-I/MBBS(RS3)-Exam/Jul- Aug22/17/2022-23 dated 13.06.2022. In pursuance to the 40 WP No. 18832 of 2022 aforesaid notification, the theory examination was conducted in the months of July/August 2022 by respondent No.1 - University, in which the petitioners have appeared.
3. On declaration of results in September 2022, the petitioners were declared as unsuccessful, in atleast one of the subjects, having not secured the minimum marks of 50% as prescribed by respondent No.1 - University. It is the case of the petitioners that some of them were declared as unsuccessful for not having secured the minimum marks by a small margin.
4. The petitioners were shocked to see the results in which they were unsuccessful and were dissatisfied by the process of evaluation methodology of respondent No.1 - University. According to the petitioners, the evaluation of answer scripts was to be conducted by four Evaluators as per the Regulation 13(2) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short 'GME Regulations, 1997') and in complete disregard to the several directions issued by this Court had caused/conducted the evaluation of answer scripts by only two Evaluators. In some of 41 WP No. 18832 of 2022 the cases, there was difference of more than 30% between the two Evaluators and despite there being erratic and vast deviation of marks awarded by the two Evaluators. Respondent No.1 - University failed to refer the marks sheet of the petitioners for further evaluation by the third Evaluator.
5. It is the case of petitioners that they are victims of erratic evaluation and therefore, they sought for revaluation of their answer scripts by two additional Evaluators and in case of deviation evaluation thereof, if the difference of marks awarded by the Evaluators inter se is more than 15% to be referred to third Evaluator. Respondent No.1 - University has not considered the request of the petitioners for two additional Evaluators and for deviation evaluation methodology as prescribed, which is in violation of Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997.
6. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to Respondent No.1 University to conduct two 42 WP No. 18832 of 2022 additional valuations of the subjects in which the Petitioners have been declared to be unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) Examinations of July/August 2022 in terms of Regulation 13 of the Medical Council of India Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 and a further deviation valuations on there being a difference of more than 15% marks between the evaluators, in a time bound manner;
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to Respondent No.1 University to, upon conduct of two or three additional valuations as the case may be, declare fresh result of the subjects in which the Petitioners have been declared to be unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) Examinations of July/August 2022 by computing the average of the two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by the four or five evaluators, as the case may be, in a time bound manner;
(c) Grant such other, further and/or consequential reliefs as may be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of 43 WP No. 18832 of 2022 the case and/or in the interest of justice and equity.
7. Respondent No.1 - University filed detailed statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and it would not survive for further consideration by this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed, in view of several judgments passed by this Court pertaining to the very same subject matter. It is further pleaded in the statement of objections that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 22.09.2022, respondent No.1
- University has conducted 'two additional evaluation' in respect of the subjects, in which the petitioners were declared to be unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) examination held in July/August 2022 and the results were declared on the basis of the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of University by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Basanth K.B. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP.No.231/2021 and connected matters, order dated 10.02.2021].
8. It is further stated that as per the judgment in Basanth's case stated supra, in view of the directions passed by 44 WP No. 18832 of 2022 this Court to the University to adopt the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing PG students of the University by identifying all the cases where there is 15% or more in the four valuations and send them to the 5th valuation and has further 'directed the University to apply the provisions governing the PG students of the University after 5th valuation and proceed to issue marks card'. It is also stated that the order passed by this Court is final and binds all, the University and the students of RS3 batch. It is further stated that as per the Ordinance governing the PG course, the results have been declared by 'computing the average of total marks awarded by the four valuators for the paper' and 'the writ issued' by this Court in Basanth's case is duly followed and complied by the University and accordingly, the results are declared.
9. It is further stated that in the light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, prayer No.2 sought for by the petitioners to conduct 'two or three additional valuations' as the case may be and to declare fresh results of subject examination, by computing 'the average of two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by the 4 or 5 Evaluators' is not 45 WP No. 18832 of 2022 maintainable, is contrary to law and would 'contradict' the very basis of the earlier judgments in Basanth's case stated supra and also in the case of Neelesh Mehta vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP.No.31335/2019 and connected matters, order dated 10.08.2020].
10. It is further stated that the consequential prayer No.2, 'to direct or to conduct two to three additional valuations' to declare fresh results by computing 'the average of two highest marks' amongst the 4 or 5 Evaluators runs contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Basanth's and Neelesh Mehta's cases stated supra.
11. It is also the say of respondent No.1 - University that in the case of Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP.No.13312/2022 and connected maters, order dated 27.07.2022], a similar relief was sought by the petitioners therein seeking to contend that they are entitled to 'computation of results' after such additional evaluation and this Court by relying on the judgment rendered in Basanth's case stated supra, has dismissed the said writ petition.46 WP No. 18832 of 2022
12. It is further stated by respondent No.1-University that prayer No.1 sought for by the petitioners for a direction to the University to conduct further deviation valuation by taking into account the difference of more than 15% marks between the valuators would also not be maintainable, which runs contrary to the statute and Ordinance. It is further stated that the University has adopted the formula prescribed in the Ordinance governing PG course by applying the judgment in Basanth's case stated supra for valuation of petitioners. Hence, the writ petition would not be maintainable. It is also pleaded that the present writ petition does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the University in evaluating the petitioners' answer papers, more so, for the reason, the petitioners have not questioned the correctness or otherwise of the 'writ directions' issued in Basanth's case stated supra. On the basis of these pleadings, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
13. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Aditya Sondhi appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri A.L.Parashuram representing the petitioners, in his erudite manner, contends that Regulation 47 WP No. 18832 of 2022 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 prescribes that each answer paper of a candidate pursuing the course is to be evaluated by four examiners, but, it does not specify the methodology of computation of results upon valuation by the four/five Evaluators as the case may be. Whereas, in respect of Post Graduate Medical Students, Clause-4a of the 'Ordinance governing Post Graduate, including PG-Diploma and Super specialty answer scripts evaluation' ('the PG Regulations') unequivocally contemplates the method of computation of the results i.e., the average of total marks awarded by four valuators for the paper. (Underlying by me)
14. He further contends that strangely a specific regulation as to how the results is to be computed upon evaluation by four/five evaluators is conspicuously absent as regards the UG course. To elaborate this, learned Senior Counsel juxtaposes the UG Regulations and PG Regulations to evidence the fact that no such Regulation is forthcoming in UG course.
15. Learned Senior Counsel contends that an interpretation, that the average of the marks i.e. awarded by 48 WP No. 18832 of 2022 the four Evaluators may be construed while calculating the results, will have the effect of reading the PG Regulations into the UG Regulations in disregard to the difference between the two Regulations. Therefore, he contends that when there is conspicuous omission in prescribing the methodology of computation of results in respect of UG students, the question of invoking PG Regulations to the UG students is farfetched, unless the same is explicitly prescribed in the Regulations. To this, he further adds that the casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in case of clear necessity and when reason for it, is found in the four corners of the statute itself, but at the same time, the casus omissus should not be readily inferred.
16. Learned Senior Counsel astutely contends that in the absence of an express provision in the Regulations, a beneficial interpretation in favour of the students must be preferred. He further assertively contends that the provision for revaluation is a beneficial provision intended for the benefit of the student community and it should be interpreted in favour of students in the event of any ambiguity. He also contends that the words 49 WP No. 18832 of 2022 cannot be read into the Ordinance or the Regulation in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the students, even if a vacuum is created and if anything other than what is stipulated in the Regulations is inferred or assumed, the same would be detrimental to the interest of the students and such interpretation must be eschewed.
17. Learned Senior Counsel eloquently contends that the average of best two marks being beneficial to the students has to be considered. According to him, a student applies for revaluation only when he is not satisfied with the result and is of the opinion that he/she has secured marks which is not commensurate to his/her performance. Under such circumstances, if the result is taken by computing the average of marks awarded by four Evaluators, the same will leave the student in a 'worse-off' situation than what he was before the revaluation process. He further contends that the average of two highest marks awarded by all the Evaluators would have a moderating effect and that the students marks may increase or at the most would remain the same.
50WP No. 18832 of 2022
18. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the average of two highest marks awarded amongst all the Evaluators would benefit the student and protect them against the erratic evaluation process. He further contends that respondent No.1 - University by way of Ordinance/notification governing the Central Assessment Program (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all UG Health Science Courses of the University dated 05.09.2022 has, for all examinations conducted on or after 01.09.2022, prescribed that the theory papers of the course be evaluated by two Evaluators and the highest amongst the two marks be declared as the result. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the present being the last examination under the old Regulations, a beneficial interpretation in favour of the students requires to the preferred and adopted.
19. Learned Senior Counsel relies on the following decisions:
1. Ms.Nireeksha S vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.10244/2021 and connected matters, Order dated 01.07.2021];51 WP No. 18832 of 2022
2. Rahul V Reddy vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.8692/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 21.04.2022];
3. Dhisha Vivek vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.7999/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 19.04.2022];
4. Sanjna Hedni vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.9285/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 05.05.2022];
5. Neelesh Mehta vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.31335/2019 and connected matters, Order dated 10.08.2020];
6. Anusha L.G. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.8862/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 26.04.2022];
7. Basanth K.B. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.231/2021 and connected matters, Order dated 10.02.2021];
8. Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science [WP No.13312/2022 and connected matters, Order dated 27.07.2022];
9. Kumari Renuka vs. The Karnataka Pre-university Board reported in ILR 1997 KAR 3179;52 WP No. 18832 of 2022
20. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri B.S.Sachin for respondent No.1 - University, in his fervent manner articulated by stating that the writ petition preferred by the petitioners is not maintainable primarily for the reason that it is basic fundamental principle of law that to seek for a writ of mandamus there has to be firstly, a demand and the said demand should have been refused or not complied to invoke the writ jurisdiction of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
21. In the present case, there is admittedly no such demand made and to worsen the case of the petitioners, there is no refusal or rejection, but rather respondent No.1 - University has obeyed the law laid down by this Court by way of writ of mandamus in Basanth's case stated supra, which has clarity and there is absolutely no ambiguity.
22. Learned Senior Counsel in poignant manner further contends that as per Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, there is a clear prescription of four examiners and out of the said four examiners, 50% must be external examiners and 53 WP No. 18832 of 2022 that the senior most internal examiner will act as the Chairman and Coordinator of the whole examination program, so that, the uniformity in the matter of assessment of the candidate is maintained. He further contends that in the present case, the petitioners have not laid a foundation and made averments for the prayer that they have sought for with regard to the valuations being conducted on the basis of average of two highest marks by the Evaluators.
23. It is also seriously contended by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioners are liable for suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, as they have deliberately suppressed the material facts before this Court. Learned Senior Counsel says this by conviction for the fact that few of the petitioners in this case were the parties as petitioners in Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha's case stated supra, but have deliberately not bothered to bring it to the notice of this Court with regard to rejection of their writ petition in Jordan's case. It is the bounden duty of the petitioners and the duty cast upon them to reveal all material facts which is within their knowledge and not suppress any such fact, which would amount to deliberate 54 WP No. 18832 of 2022 suppression of material facts, depriving the petitioners of any relief to be granted.
24. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that it is a misconception 'to premise' that the provisions of revaluations are intended to benefit the students in clearing their subjects. In fact, it is a mechanism to address the issue of possible erratic evaluation when valuations are made to a large number of candidates. He further contends that the process adopted by respondent No.1 - University is pursuant to several direction issued by this Court, wherein the University has conducted two additional valuation strictly by applying the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of the University by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Basanth's case stated supra.
25. It is by virtue of Basanth's case stated supra that respondent No.1 - University was directed to adopt the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing PG students including the methodology of evaluation by average of four Evaluators and to round off to the nearest value while computing the results. Respondent No.1 - University being bound by the writ 55 WP No. 18832 of 2022 orders issued by this Court, has obeyed the same and implemented it in its true letter and spirit, thereby it would now, not be permissible for the petitioners to contend that the revaluation methodology should be conducted according to their choice of average of two highest marks from the evaluators to be taken from amongst four or five Evaluators.
26. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that as stated earlier, in the Jordan's case stated supra, similar relief was sought for by few of the petitioners which was out rightly rejected by this Court relying on the judgment rendered in Basanth's case stated supra. Hence, the petitioners now cannot approbate and reprobate at their own whims and fancies to seek a choice of their own evaluation methodology than what is prescribed by the GME Regulations, 1997 and the writ direction issued by this Court in Basanth's case stated supra. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that in Nireeksha's case stated supra, similar situation had arosen and this Court relying on Basanth's case, disposed of the writ petition.
27. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the petitioners do not have an inherent right to choose the 56 WP No. 18832 of 2022 methodology of evaluation as per their choice. It is respondent No.1 - University, the State/Central authority which prescribes the methodology and the process of evaluation. He also contends that generally in the matters of education, the Courts should be circumspect in substituting its own views as to what is prudent or wise in relation to academic matters. It should be left to the academicians to do their job and the Courts should refrain in treading to their territory of policy decisions. To substantiate and articulate this aspect, he relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others reported in (1984)4 SCC 27.
28. On the basis of these submissions, learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief much less the relief of writ of mandamus, or for that matter, even the discretionary relief as it would set a bad precedent in the Courts across the country. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the petition.
57WP No. 18832 of 2022
29. Learned counsel Sri N.Khetty representing respondent No.2, in his usual discerning style, vehemently contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of suppression of material facts and also for the reason that what is sought by the petitioners with regard to evaluation of average of two highest marks by four/five Evaluators has already been decided by several orders of Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel lays stress on the GME Regulations, 1997, wherein Regulation 13(2) prescribes four examiners, out of whom, 50% must be internal examiners and out of the said four examiners, senior most internal examiners to act as a Chairman and coordinator of the whole examination programme, so that, there could be uniformity in the matter of assessment of candidates.
30. Learned counsel Sri Khetty, in his typical erudite manner, further contends that the students sitting for the examination should not aim to score 50% to merely secure a pass mark, whereas, it is the intent of the Legislation and also for a good health care system and for having better qualified Doctors having expertise, to score more than merely 50% 58 WP No. 18832 of 2022 marks for the betterment of the patients and society. He also reiterates the contentions put-forth by learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik in supporting the argument that it is a misconception that the provisions of revaluation are intended to benefit students in clearing their subjects, whereas it is a mechanism to address the issue of possible erratic valuation, if any.
31. Learned counsel further controverts the arguments of the petitioners' counsel that the evaluation methodology by the four/five Evaluators should enure to the benefit of the students and cannot go lower than the higher marks secured despite lesser marks scored in the revaluation. To this, learned counsel contends that the revaluation methodology is premised on the basis that whatever revaluation marks are secured by the students, the same would replace the original marks of the students, be it higher or lower. It cannot be at the whims and fancies of the students or the marks beneficial to the students.
32. Learned counsel further contends that the GME Regulations, 1997, is not disturbed or altered by the Medical Council of India or by the Courts, the same stands good even 59 WP No. 18832 of 2022 as on date, which clearly prescribes evaluation by four examiners. It is also the contention of learned counsel Sri N.Khetty that few of the petitioners in this petition have filed multiple writ petitions in WP.Nos.13312/2022 and 18832/2022 namely, Vinay M.Ittagi, Karthik K., Ashik Shetty, Pranai Roy and they were unsuccessful as the petitions came to be dismissed. Learned counsel further contends that Regulation 14(1)(b) of the PG Regulations prescribes two external and two internal examiners for examinations.
33. Learned counsel further contends that in Neelesh Mehta's case stated supra, this Court quashed the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 and explained the Ordinance of 2012 and held that RS3 Schemes students valuation of answer scripts is to be by 'set of four examiners' in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997. Learned counsel further contends that in Basanth's case stated supra, this Court quashed the Ordinance dated 13.10.2020 and directed valuation of RS3 MBBS students answer scripts of failed students on par with PG students Regulations and by taking average of four best total marks awarded amongst four/five examiners.
60WP No. 18832 of 2022
34. He further contends that in Nireeksha's case stated supra, this Court reiterated and followed the decisions in Neelesh Mehta's case stated supra and that of Basanth's case stated supra by clarifying that the students admitted prior to academic year 2019-2020 are entitled for additional two Evaluators in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997. This judgment came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.771/2021 dated 12.08.2021. He further contends that in several other cases, the relief of taking top two marks amongst four/five evaluation marks was rejected by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel further contends that the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners would not be helpful to them, as it is no more res integra with regard to valuation methodology of average of four Evaluators and in case of deviation of fifth Evaluator, which would be the correct process for evaluation method. This has also been affirmed in Basanth's case stated supra. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 61 WP No. 18832 of 2022
35. Having heard learned Senior counsel Sri Aditya Sondhi, appearing on behalf of learned counsel for petitioners Sri A.L. Parashuram; learned Senior counsel Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri B.S. Sachin, for respondent No.1 - University and Sri N.Khetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is :-
"Whether the petitioners are entitled to two additional valuations for the subjects, in which they have been declared as unsuccessful in MBBS (RS3) examination of July/August, 2022 by computing the average of two highest marks amongst the marks awarded by the four/five Evaluators?"
36. The subject matter of revaluation of answer scripts of various courses of examinations and postponement of examinations for whatsoever reasons and conducting of re- totaling of the marks in the answer scripts has become a perennial problem across India and every year, we find huge amount of cases filed by the students of various courses seeking revaluation methodology to be changed/modified/ altered etc. Time and again, various High Courts including this 62 WP No. 18832 of 2022 Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have in catena of judgments held that in the matters of education, the Courts should be careful in granting interim orders for the reason that it would affect the career and future of the students, as they would lose a precious year or two due to the litigation.
37. In the present case on hand, all the petitioners are the students of Under Graduate MBBS course of different years. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the evaluation methodology prescribed by the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 mandates evaluation by four Evaluators and further providing methodology for deviation evaluation, in case of erratic evaluation. This aspect of the matter is in agreement by all, the petitioners as well as respondents with regard to the evaluation of four Evaluators. The question i.e. raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that the average of two highest marks amongst four/five Evaluators is to be taken for computation of marks and accordingly, seeks a writ of mandamus to that effect.
38. This aspect of the matter with regard to whether the computation of marks has to be done by taking the two highest 63 WP No. 18832 of 2022 marks amongst four/five Evaluators or on the basis of average of four Evaluators has been already decided by various judgments of this Court right from the case of Neelesh Mehta stated supra and thereafter in 6-7 judgments of this Court pertaining to the very same subject matter. It is no more res integra with regard to subject matter questioned in this petition of evaluation methodology of two highest marks amongst four/five Evaluators and the average of four/five Evaluators and provision for deviation evaluation. This Court in Basanth's case stated supra, has clearly held relying on Neelesh Mehta's case stated supra, that there cannot be disparity between the evaluation methodology of Post Graduate students and Under Graduate students on the premise that there cannot be two different standards of evaluation methodology by respondent No.1 - University. (Underlying by me)
39. This Court, in Basanth's case stated supra, has further reiterated that as per Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, even the Medical Council of India has prescribed a mandate that there shall be four examiners, out of whom, 50% shall be internal examiners, which means to say 64 WP No. 18832 of 2022 that this Court has held time and again that the evaluation methodology has to be, as per the prescribed mandate provided by the Medical Council of India in Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, which prescribes four examiners.
40. It is worthwhile to extract para-29 in Basanth's case stated supra, which reads as under:
"29. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-University that providing for four evaluations fulfills the requirement under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, and there is nothing in the said Regulations compelling the University to have a fifth valuation, cannot be accepted. The basic premise on which the previous Ordinance was struck down by the co-ordinate Bench was that there cannot be a discrimination in providing for valuation of the answer scripts of a PG student or a UG student. So long as there is provision for four evaluations and a fifth evaluation for PG students, similar provisions are required to be made use of in case of the UG students also."
41. It is pursuant to this order in Basanth's case stated supra that respondent No.1 - University in full compliance and obedience of the same, has followed the directions and 65 WP No. 18832 of 2022 implemented the same by adopting the Regulations which was made available to the PG Students to the UG students on evaluation methodology. In a similarly situated case of Nireeksha stated supra belonging to Under Graduate course, the same issue was agitated before this Court with regard to two additional evaluation and deviation valuation in case of difference of 15% marks to be conducted strictly in compliance with Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 and even in this case, this Court relying on Neelesh Mehta's and Basanth's cases stated supra, dismissed petitions of the writ petitioners, who are Under Graduate students of MBBS course.
42. Thereafter, few of the students again approached this Court for the similar relief as sought in this petition in Rahul V.Reddy's case, wherein this Court again by relying on Nireeksha's case, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to comply with the direction issued in Ms.Nireeksha's case. Again, another student approached this Court in Anusha's case stated supra seeking for similar relief of Under Graduate course to adhere to the Regulation of 13(2) of GME Regulations, 1997 as per the order in Nireeksha's case. The said writ petition also 66 WP No. 18832 of 2022 came to be disposed of relying on Neelesh Mehta's case. Thereafter, in the case of Sanjna Hedni's case stated supra, a similar relief was sought for in the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein and this Court once again relying on the judgment of Nireeksha's case, disposed of the writ petition to follow the directions issued therein. Thereafter, once again the students had approached this Court in the case of Jordan Ridhay Rasquinha stated supra, wherein similar relief as sought for in this writ petition was agitated. Having considered the vehement contentions of parties and relying on the previous judgments of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the cases mentioned supra, the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners/students came to be dismissed by this Court.
43. In similar set of cases filed by the students aggrieved by the very same subject in issue of valuation and computation of marks of average of top two marks from amongst four/five valuators which was raised before this Court, came to be disposed of in Khushi Narayan and others vs. Rajiv Gandhi University and another [WP.No.7682/2022, Order dated 67 WP No. 18832 of 2022 19.04.2022] following the decision in Nireeksha's case stated supra.
44. In another case by similarly placed students in the case of Mr.Pradhyoth Sai Manohar and others vs. Rajiv Gandhi University and others [WP.No.19963/2021, Order dated 15.11.2021], this Court again disposed of the said writ petition in terms of Nireeksha's case. It is relevant to mention that the said case of Nireeksha was challenged by respondent No.1 - University before the Division Bench of this Court with regard to its correctness of the order. The appeal of respondent No.1 - University came to be dismissed and further the Division Bench directed respondent No.1 - University to give effect to the order of learned Single Judge and hence, Nireeksha's case is affirmed and not disturbed.
45. Learned Senior Counsel arguing in support of the petitioners, relying on the case of Renuka emphasizes the point with regard to the said judgment that where the Rules do not provide a particular thing, can the authority contend and adopt a particular method of its own choice. He further contends that Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 does not very 68 WP No. 18832 of 2022 specifically state with regard to average of four/five valuators and when the same is silent, without any words expressed, no alternative words could be added or inserted to cause a particular change. Learned Senior Counsel further relies on para-12, which reads as under:
"12. In the absence of an express provision as to what should happen when a certain state of things exist, it is not permissible to adopt one among several solutions, which is detrimental to the interests of the students, when other beneficial alternatives exist. As already held, the principle relied on by the Department, that it is permissible to supply words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, will apply only where the word or words to be added are the only word or words that can be added and there is an obvious omission thereof. That principle will not apply where different sets of words with different meanings can be added. To illustrate: If a section provides that a particular act is an offence and the offender shall be punished, but fails to prescribe the quantum or type of punishment, obviously it cannot be contended that the offender should be imposed the maximum punishment of life imprisonment."69 WP No. 18832 of 2022
46. Hence, under these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel contends that the provision of revaluation is a beneficial provision inserted with the object of providing benefit to the students' community and therefore, whenever there is any ambiguity, the same would have to be interpreted in favour of the students. It is also the case of the petitioners that the highest of best two marks is beneficial to the students and that in the case of revaluation if applied by the student, the average of two highest marks would have a moderating effect and that the highest of two marks if is in favour of the student is to be taken and in case, the same gets reduced by virtue of revaluation, then also the previous highest marks to be taken than the reduced marks secured in the revaluation. It is the further case of the petitioners that in case of erratic evaluation process, two highest marks amongst all the Evaluators be taken to protect the students against such erratic evaluation and referred to third or fifth Evaluator.
47. The arguments and contentions of learned Senior Counsel arguing for the petitioners, at the first blush, is very appealing and impressive, as it is intended for the benefit of the 70 WP No. 18832 of 2022 students at large. But, however, the same will have to be mandated and sanctioned by provisions of the statute. I am in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel that in case, there is no provision in the statute or in the Regulations, then under such circumstances, the Court can consider the argument of beneficial theory in favour of the students. But, in a case where the statute provide a particular provision and mandates specifically as to how the process of valuation has to be conducted, I am afraid in such circumstances, the question of interpretation beneficial to the students contrary to the specific provision would not arise and the same is also held in Renuka's case stated supra at para-14, which is extracted hereinbelow:
"14. In the absence of a logical meaning to the last portion of Rule 29(4), it is more appropriate to construe it in a manner, which is beneficial to the student. As pointed out above, a student applies for revaluation only when he is not satisfied with the result and feels that he got lesser than what his performance deserved. If a student feels that he has obtained more marks than expected, he will not apply for revaluation. In fact, sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 provides for revaluation of answer scripts of the "students who are not 71 WP No. 18832 of 2022 satisfied with the valuation already done." Hence, the provision for revaluation, is a beneficial provision intended for the benefit of the student community and should therefore be interpreted in favour of the students, if there is ambiguity. Of course, where the provision is clear, the question of interpretation in a manner beneficial to the Student, contrary to the specific provision, will not arise."
48. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik lays emphasis on paras-6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of Kumari Renuka's case stated supra, which read as under:
"6.1 There is no legal basis for such a contention. The Supreme Court in the case of MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION has pointed out that a student has no right other than what is provided under the Rules. The Supreme Court also held that the revaluation is a matter of policy of the State and the Examining Authority. It was further held that the courts should not examine the merits or demerits of the policy of the State and the Examining Authority. It was further held that the courts should not examine the merits or demerits of the policy that is contained in a Rule, as the 72 WP No. 18832 of 2022 policy is not open for scrutiny, and what is open for scrutiny is the question whether the Rule falls within the scope of the Rule making power conferred by the statute. Therefore the question of students relying on any general principles relating to revaluation, does not arise. The Rules will regulate whether there should be revaluation, and if so in what circumstances revaluation should be permitted and how revaluation should be given effect, so as to achieve the objects of revaluation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the marks of revaluation can be substituted only when there is an upward revision and not otherwise, irrespective of the provisions relating to revaluation, is hereby rejected.
6.2 In LALJIT TAORI's case, the Bombay High Court, having regard to the wording of the relevant Ordinance, held as follows:
"Revaluation is a part of examination and is a fresh appraisal of the performance of a student by other examiner....In case the marks increase, as a result of revaluation, the increase is binding on the University which is obliged to vary the result on that basis. How, then the decrease in the marks can be held not binding on the student? the result of revaluation - whatever it is - has to be accepted as correct and final by all 73 WP No. 18832 of 2022 concerned and for all purposes. Indeed after revaluation, the result of original valuation is erased. To hold otherwise would be against the basic concept of revaluation. It is submitted that the ordinance is a beneficial piece if legislation intended for the benefit of student community and must be interpreted in its favour as far as possible. Apart from the consideration that such interpretation would be basically wrong, neither the letter nor the spirit of this ordinance leaves any scope for such interpretation..."
Though the above passage gives an impression that what is stated is a general principle regarding revaluation, it is not so. What is stated is the purport of the relevant ordinance and nothing more. The purpose and right to revaluation as also the manner and effect of revaluation, are entirely governed by the relevant Rule or ordinance and not by any general principle.
6.3. Once a student, seeks revaluation in accordance with the Rules, revaluation will be made in accordance with the Rules and the student cannot contend that the revaluation marks should be entered only if there is any upward revision and not where there is any downward revision in the marks. If the Rules provide that the student will be 74 WP No. 18832 of 2022 entitled to the benefits of revaluation in a particular manner, then, he will be entitled to the benefits in that manner and not any other manner. If the Rules provide that the marks on revaluation shall replace the original marks, then it follows that the marks obtained on revaluation shall replace the original marks. If the Rules provide that the revaluation marks shall replace the original marks only when the difference exceeds five, then the original marks can be replaced by the revaluation marks, only if there is such difference. In other words, the matter is governed by the Rules and not by any general principle of equity."
49. It is the case of learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R.Naik that the petitioners, who are students do not have an inherent right with regard to the methodology or the process of methodology of revaluation, as the same is a policy decision to be made by the State, which vests with the State and cannot be on the whims and fancies of the students. The Rule making power conferred by the statute is the prerogative of the State.
50. The arguments of learned Senior Counsel on behalf of petitioners with regard to computation of two highest marks 75 WP No. 18832 of 2022 amongst the four marks awarded by four/five evaluators, is answered in the orders rendered by several Coordinate Bench of this Court stated supra. It is also seen that in Basanth's case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has clearly stated at para-29 with regard to the methodology of four evaluation and fifth evaluation of PG students to be adopted and followed in the case UG students as well. When this being the case, the direction to that effect having been given by this Court was followed by respondent No.1 - University, which cannot said to be tainted with illegality, arbitrariness or discrimination against the Under Graduate students. It is also necessary to lay stress on the orders passed in Basanth's case, wherein the provisions for deviation valuation is also addressed in case of there being a difference of 15% or more in the four evaluations to the fifth evaluator. Further, it is seen that this valuation methodology is extended to all the similarly placed/situated students even without driving them to any litigation process.
51. Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 is in force and the same is not disturbed or altered or set aside by any Court of law. This is a Regulation of the Medical Council of India which is a Central Legislation and any Regulation made by 76 WP No. 18832 of 2022 the State will have to be in conformity with that of the Central Legislation and cannot act contrary to the same. Therefore, the prescription and mandate provided in Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 is clear and unambiguous with regard to four examiners out of whom two being the internal and two external examiners. This aspect of the Regulation has been upheld to be followed in the cases of Neelesh Mehta, Basanth, Nireeksha and other cases stated supra by this Court time and again. This Court is of the opinion that any Legislation or provisions included in the statute is the domain vested with the State and the Medical Council of India being a statutory body interested in the academic welfare of the society at large, in its wisdom has enacted the Policy by incorporating the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, which cannot be faulted.
52. In this background, if the whole case of the petitioners is summarized it is seen that at the instance of the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation the methodology of four plus one evaluation was introduced providing the benefit of deviation evaluation in case of erratic evaluation by four Evaluators to the fifth Evaluator. It is at the instance of the 77 WP No. 18832 of 2022 petitioners, who had sought for four/five Evaluators, the same was allowed. Now at the whims and fancies of the petitioners, who are unsuccessful, the same cannot be reversed to the methodology of two highest marks amongst four Evaluators. This would in turn mean turning the clock backwards and putting the cart before the horse, which is not permissible.
53. This Court is of the opinion that there is no arbitrariness, illegality or discrimination as against the petitioners-students by invoking the methodology of four/five Evaluators in consonance to Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, so also, which is affirmed by an order of writ of mandamus issued by this Court in Basanth's case stated supra. The petitioners having availed the benefit in their favour of the four/five Evaluators addressing the deviation valuation in case of erratic evaluation now cannot contend that there is discrimination against them.
54. In view of specific provisions governing the MCI, i.e., Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997, and the orders passed in Basanth's case stated supra, I do not find any illegality to exercise the theory of beneficial discretion to the 78 WP No. 18832 of 2022 students as the same would run contrary to the existing Regulation of the Medical Council of India.
55. It is also submitted across the Bar that respondent No.1 - University following the Regulation 13(2) of the GME Regulations, 1997 and the order in Basanth's case stated supra has evaluated the answer scripts of the unsuccessful students and has declared the results by using the methodology of average of four/five Evaluators also addressing the erratic evaluation by way of deviation valuation of the fifth Evaluator in case of difference of more than 15% marks by the four Evaluators. The results have been declared and the same is made known to the students. It is also stated across the Bar that initially, the next semester examination was scheduled to be conducted on 23rd January 2023, which came to be postponed to 3rd February 2023, thereby providing ten days time from the previous scheduled date of examination and the results were declared and made known to the petitioners/ students 14 days prior to the next date of exam.
56. Under these circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to invoke the extra-ordinary writ 79 WP No. 18832 of 2022 jurisdiction, of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd-
JUDGE LB/VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26