Karnataka High Court
Dr Abhishek M Sutrave vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 18 March, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 16960 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. ABHISHEK M. SUTRAVE,
S/O.MANJAL SUTRAVE,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.37, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, PATTEGEREPALYA,
BANGALORE-560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE-CHANCELLOR/REGISTRAR,
4TH BLOCK, EAST,
PATTABHIRAMANAGAR, JAYANAGAR,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 041.
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 2. GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED Y ITS PRINCIPAL,
COURT OF DR. SIDDIAH PURANIK ROAD,
KARNATAKA
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MAMATA RURURAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT NO.1) (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH -2- NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 CLAUSE 5.I(B) OF THE ORDINANCE GOVERNING POST-GRADUATION INCLUDING DIPLOMA AND SUPERSPECIALITY ANSWER SCRIPTS EVALUATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-6(EXAM)/2018-19 DATED 29.03.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, (II) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION TO HOLD THAT THE EVALUATION DONE BY THE 5TH VALUATOR IN THE IMPUGNED DIGITAL VALUATION SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE SUBJECT OF ADVANCED TEACHING OF FUNDAMENTALS OF HOMEOPATHY (PAPER CODE A02) FOR REGISTER NUMBER 21HC001 DATED 29.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-B SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING, (III) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE 4 VALUATORS WITHOUT A MODEL ANSWER KEY IS PATENTLY ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR; (IV) PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND (V) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDINANCE GOVERNING POST- GRADUATION INCLUDING DIPLOMA AND SUPERSPECIALITY ANSWER SCRIPTS RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-6(EXAM)/2018-19, DATED 29/03/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash Clause 5.I(B) of the Ordinance Governing Post-Graduation Including Diploma and Super speciality answer scripts evaluation issued by the 1st respondent bearing No.RGU/AUTH/140-
SYN/117-6(Exam)/2018-19 dated 29.03.2019 vide Annexure-F,
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration to hold that the evaluation done by the 5th -3- NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 valuator in the impugned digital valuation slip of the petitioner for the subject of advanced teaching of fundamentals of homeopathy (paper code A02) for register number 21HC001 dated 29.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.1, vide Annexure-B shall be final and binding,
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration that the valuation done by the 4 valuators without a model answer key is patently arbitrary and unfair;
(iv) Pass such other writ, order or direction in the interest of justice and equity and
(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the ordinance governing post- graduation including diploma and super speciality answer scripts RGU/AUTH/140-syn/117-6(Exam)/ 2018-19, dated 29/03/2019 vide Annexure-F.
2. The petitioner is a student of the 2nd respondent-
Government Homeopathic Medical College, (for short, 'GHMC'), Bengaluru, having completed his Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery, (for short 'BHMAS') from GHMC in the year 2021, obtained an aggregate score of 2721/4600 in the IV- year UG course.
3. The petitioner thereafter approached the All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) , and appeared for the AIAPGET examinations for the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 course of MD in Homeopathy on 18.09.2021. In terms thereof, results came to be declared on 21.10.2021, and the petitioner obtained an All-India rank of 36 with a score of 310/480 amounting to 99.44 percentile. The petitioner was informed that the counselling for seat allocation would be held on 17.03.2022, and the document verification would take place on 21.03.2022. The petitioner having attended both the above was granted admission to GHMC for the MD course for an Ayush Degree/ Practice of Medicine (Homeopathy) which had commenced on 18.04.2022.
4. The first year MD examination was conducted from 31.10.2023 to 04.11.2023 and the petitioner appeared in all the examinations including theory and practicals. The results of the Ist year MD examinations were declared on 11.12.2023, in which the petitioner had cleared two out of three papers. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024
5. In the subject-Advanced Teaching of Fundamentals of Homeopathy the petitioner obtained 86/150 marks (theory 46/100, average of 4 valuations, practical and viva 40/50). The petitioner though scored 80% in his practical examination, but failed in the theory examination of the aforesaid subject. The petitioner appeared for the second attempt re-examination of that subject on 14.03.2024. The results of the second attempt/re-examination were announced on 29.04.2024, the petitioner received a total score of 87/150 (theory 44/100, practical and viva 43/50).
6. The petitioner having noticed the difference between the highest marks awarded by Evaluator No.II and the lowest marks awarded by Evaluator No.I was over 15%, requested for it to be referred to Evaluator No.V, which on such reference, Evaluator No.V awarded the petitioner 55 marks out of 100 in theory.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024
7. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent-GHMC on 03.06.2024 contending that there was arbitrary awardal of marks and there was gross disparity between the marks. However, did not receive any response to the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.06.2024 and it is in that background the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
8. The submission of Shri. Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that 8.1. There is complete and gross disparity and arbitrary awardal of marks by the evaluators. The petitioner is a meritorious student, the petitioner succeeded in the entrance exam by being awarded 310 out of 480 marks with 99.44 percentile. The petitioner having secured all India rank of 36.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 8.2. The petitioner also having done exceedingly well in the practicals, in the first attempt having secured 40 out of 50 and in the second attempt having secured 43 out of 50, the same indicates the proficiency of the petitioner. When the petitioner has done so well in the practicals, the valuation made of the theory paper is not proper and as such he submits that the manner in which the marks have been awarded is not justified. He submits that in the second attempt of the theory examination, he had obtained the highest marks of 51 by the Evaluator-II and lowest of 35 marks by the Evaluator-I. The Evaluator-V having awarded 55 marks, it is the said marks allotted by the Evaluator-V, which is required to be taken into account and if the same were taken into account, the petitioner would have to be declared passed in the aforesaid subject.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 8.3. The reference to Evaluator-V being made on the ground that the Evaluator-V is a more experienced Evaluator and the Evaluator-V being a Professor, which is a senior post. The said Evaluator-V having now evaluated the answer script of the petitioner and having awarded much higher marks, it is this higher marks, which would have to enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner having scored 86% in the practical examination cannot be declared failed on the basis of improper correction/valuation of the theory paper. 8.4. The valuation made by all the evaluators smacks of arbitrariness, non-application of mind and incompetence on part of the evaluators.
8.5. The Ordinance Governing Homeopathy (Postgraduate Degree Course) MD (HOM) 2016 states that, if a candidate has failed in a -9- NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 subject, he will have only one attempt to clear the said subject, failing which, he would have to reappear for the examinations for all the subject papers in the first year. 8.6. In view of the arbitrary evaluation, the petitioner would be forced to lose one year and as such, the petitioner cannot be made to bear the brunt of the improper evaluation. 8.7. The ordinance has not been approved by the Academic Council (for short 'AC') and the Syndicate insofar as the postgraduate course is concerned, what has been approved is only the ordinance for the undergraduates. 8.8. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University have sought to as if contend that the ordinance is approved for the postgraduate course, which in fact is not so. There being no ordinance approved for the postgraduate
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 course, there is a vacuum which needs to be filled up by this Court and this Court would be required to pass an order in the interest of the student that is to say a student-friendly order is to be passed.
8.9. His submission is that if the ordinance of postgraduate course is eschewed, then what would be applicable is the discretion of this Court to be exercised in the better interest of the student taking into consideration the background of the students.
8.10. To support the above, he submits that on 21.02.2019, the Committee of Academic Council(for short 'CAC') held a meeting. As per the meeting of the CAC, subject 17 was the approval of the revised ordinance governing undergraduate evaluation. Even this, though approved by the CAC, was without any deliberations since the minutes do not reflect
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 any such deliberation and the approval being in a single line recorded in the minutes. As such, he contends that the approval of subject 17 is without application of mind, thereby not constituting effective consultation. 8.11. The Syndicate, in its 140th meeting held on 27.02.2019 had approved the revised ordinance in terms of subject 17 and approved subject 17 being the revised ordinance governing valuation of undergraduate students. Again he submits that the Syndicate also did not have any deliberations on the said subject. There was no effective application of mind and as such, the approval by the Syndicate is also not proper. 8.12. Though the CAC and Syndicate only approved the ordinance governing valuation of undergraduate students, the impugned ordinance governing postgraduate students including Diploma and Super speciality was
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 brought into effect on 01.03.2019, which has never been considered either by the CAC or by the Syndicate. Therefore, he submits that the same is in violation of sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short 'RGUHS Act').
8.13. No such ordinance could have been brought into force or effect without the Syndicate having effectively consulted the Academic Council. 8.14. The CAC being a subcommittee constituted by the AC could only recommend to the AC and it is for the AC to have considered the recommendation and applied its mind to it and in turn, made a recommendation to the Syndicate, which also could not have been accepted by the Syndicate blindly, but could be accepted by the Syndicate only after deliberation and discussion on the said subject.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 8.15. None of the above having been done. His submission is that there is a violation of sub- section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS Act. The said sub-section (3) of Section 35 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"35. Ordinance -
(1) XXXX
(2) xxxx
(3) In making an ordinance the Syndicate shall consult.-
(a) the Boards of Studies in mattes relating to the appointment and duties of examiners; and
(b) the Academic Council in matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students. Syndicate."
8.16. He submits that the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the RGUHS issued two separate corrigendums. One was to effect a change in the minutes of the meeting of the CAC held on 21.02.2019 relating to subject 17 and second to effect a change in the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 27.02.2019 by insertion of the words "PG".
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 8.17. These corrigenda having been inserted and/or approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar are not one's which are approved by the CAC or the AC or the Syndicate. None of them having considered the corrigenda and approved the insertion of the alphabets PG. 8.18. On 17.06.2019, when a meeting of the AC was convened, the AC ratified the minutes of the meeting of CAC held on 21.02.2019, such ratification was without any deliberation. The AC could not have blindly ratified the minutes of the CAC without deliberating on the consequences and implications of the recommendation of the CAC. Such ratification is mechanical in nature and as such is not sustainable. The mandatory requirement under law being of promulgation of an ordinance by the Syndicate only after prior consultation with the AC is therefore clearly violated, as the AC
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 has neither deliberated on the subject matter nor is it considered in detail the recommendation of the CAC and or ratified the same prior to the ordinance being passed. His submission is that the AC has only ratified the meeting of CAC dated 21.02.2019. 8.19. The CAC itself not having ratified the corrigendum, the question of AC ratifying the corrigendum would not arise. Even if, the process of ratification is accepted to be valid, the ratification is only for an ordinance to undergraduate students and not for PG students as such, the said ordinance could never have been applied to the PG students. 8.20. He places reliance on the decision in the case of Basaanth K.B. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Another1, more particularly paragraph Nos.16 and 31 of the 1 2021 SCC OnLine Kar. 483
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 judgment, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"16. Be that as it may, if the Vice-Chancellor invoked the special powers under Section 13(2) exercising the powers vested on Academic Council, the question that would arise for consideration is whether the Vice-Chancellor could exercise such powers, in the matter of promulgation of Ordinances which is a subordinate legislation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., subordinate legislation should not be manifestly arbitrary. In the case of Cellular Operators Association of India (supra), Their Lordships have noticed two judgments in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304 and Sharma Transport Vs. State of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188, where it was held that the tests of arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation can be struck down such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law making power. Moreover, this Court has already considered as to whether the consultation process stipulated under Section 35(3)(b) is mandatory or directory. It has been held that the consultation with the Academic Council is mandatory and the consultation contemplated under the said provision is not a formal consultation but an effective consultation. There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., that the special powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) cannot be stretched to enable the Vice-Chancellor to exercise the powers and functions of the Academic Council, which is an expert body, more so, in the matter of promulgation of Ordinance or amendments to the Ordinance, in matters touching upon the conduct or setting standards of examination. The powers conferred under Section
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 13(1) on the Vice-Chancellor is to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the university and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the university.
31. Before parting, this Court deems it fit to remind the respondent-University and the National Medical Commission that His Lordship Krishna S.Dixit J., had made thought provoking observations in the matter of digital evaluation of answer papers and the need for model key answers. The petitioners had raised objection as to the level of efficacy and transparency in the matter of Digital Valuation. The students had pressed for introduction of the concept of Model Key Answers on the ground that it would reduce the vagaries of valuation and evaluators by providing some yardstick. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-University that matters relating to examination, valuation of papers and modalities of valuation, fall within the exclusive domain of the campus and ordinarily Courts do not take up a roving enquiry, more so, when they relate to the fast growing Medical Science and Technology was noticed. Regard was also had to the explanations given by the Registrar (Evaluation) on the difficulties in immediately implementing the system of Model Key Answers. The co-ordinate Bench noticed that the University was not averse to welcoming expert views from the community of the students for improving the system as such. The manner in which the impugned Ordinance was issued, without seeking the opinion of an expert body like the Advisory Council, does not augur well for the future of medical education. While framing policies, opinion of the experts should be sought and the grievance of the student community should also be heard. A policy having broad vision would be least susceptible to challenge. Therefore, this Court takes this opportunity to once again remind the respondent- University and the National Medical Commission to ponder over the observations and come up with a policy which would be in the best interest of medical education."
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 8.21. By relying on Basaanth K.B. case, he submits that the stipulation under Section 35(3)(b) is mandatory and the consultation contemplated under the said provision is not mere consultation, but is a effective consultation. He submits that no clear recording of what deliberation has been made as to what has taken place either before the CAC or before the Syndicate with regard to the ordinance governing post graduates has been placed on record. This non consultation is a glaring legal infraction and as such the post graduation ordinance cannot be said to be valid. The approval by the Registrar and the Vice- Chancellor would not amount to approval by the CAC or AC or the Syndicate.
8.22. He submits that the corrigendum was only signed by the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 the University. There is no power vested with the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor to issue a corrigendum. The corrigendum ought to have been approved by the CAC, then by the AC, and thereafter by the Syndicate. Even if there was an oversight in the typing, the said oversight ought to have been accepted and approved by the CAC, AC, and then the Syndicate. 8.23. There is manifest arbitrariness in the ordinance itself, it having provided that in case of deviation total marks awarded by any two evaluators is equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed, then the answer paper would go for Vth Evaluation. 8.24. The ordinance suffers from manifest arbitrariness, inasmuch as there being a difference of 15% between the highest valuer and the lowest valuer among the four valuers. A fifth valuer having been appointed, there is
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 no purpose served by averaging the marks of top four valuers. The fifth valuer being a more competent valuer and senior in rank to the other valuers, the valuation submitted by the fifth valuer is required to be considered. 8.25. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., & Ors., Vs. Union Of India & Ors2, more particularly, paragraphs 75 and 78, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"75. A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. In England, the Judges would say "Parliament never intended 2 (1985) 1 SCC 641 | 1984 INSC 231
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 authority to make such rules. They are unreasonable and ultra vires". The present position of law bearing on the above point is stated by Diplock, L.J. in Mixnam's Properties Ltd. v. Chertsey Urban District Council thus:
"The various special grounds on which subordinate legislation has sometimes been said to be void ... can, I think, today be properly regarded as being particular applications of the general rule that subordinate legislation, to be valid, must be shown to be within the powers conferred by the statute. Thus, the kind of unreasonableness which invalidates a bye-law is not the antonym of 'reasonableness' in the sense in which that expression is used in the common law, but such manifest arbitrariness, injustice or partiality that a court would say:
'Parliament never intended to give authority to make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires'...if the courts can declare subordinate legislation to be invalid for 'uncertainty' as distinct from unenforceable...this must be because Parliament is to be presumed not to have intended to authorise the subordinate legislative authority to make changes in the existing law which are uncertain."
78. That subordinate legislation cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice on which administrative action may be questioned has been held by this Court in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra and in Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. A distinction must be made between delegation of a legislative function in the case of which the question of reasonableness cannot be enquired into and the investment by statute to exercise particular discretionary powers. In the latter case the question may be considered on all grounds on which administrative action may be questioned, such as, non-application of mind, taking irrelevant
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 matters into consideration, failure to take relevant matters into consideration, etc, etc. On the facts and circumstances of a case, a subordinate legislation may be struck down a arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into account very vital facts which either expressly or by necessary implication are required to be taken into consideration by the statute or, say, the Constitution. This can only be done on the ground that it does not conform to the statutory or constitutional requirements or that it offends Article 14 or Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It cannot, no doubt, be done merely on the ground that it is not reasonable or that it has not taken into account relevant circumstances which the Court considers relevant."
8.26. By relying on the Indian Express case, his submission is that subordinate legislation does not enjoy the same degree of immunity as that of a statutory body and any act by the subordinate legislation is open to scrutiny in the larger sense of it possibly having been unreasonable and thereby manifestly arbitrary. 8.27. In the instant case, the impugned ordinance being in contravention to the statutory requirement under Section 35(3) is thus manifestly arbitrary and the same having been
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 carried out by subordinate legislation is thus open to be challenged before this Court. 8.28. He also refers to the decision in the case of Cellular Operators Authority of India & Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Ors.3, more particularly paragraphs 42, 68, and 69 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"42. We have already seen that one of the tests for challenging the constitutionality of subordinate legislation is that subordinate legislation should not be manifestly arbitrary. Also, it is settled law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. (See Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, SCC at p. 689, para 75.)
68. The context in which this statement occurs in para 23 is very different from the present context. This Court in DSC-Viacon Ventures (P) Ltd. held that a toll can only be collected for maintaining a road. The patches in which the road is not properly maintained should reduce proportionately the amount of toll that is to be paid. As there was no data in that case to indicate the extent of road length and the resultant inconvenience to users of the road, a certain amount of guesswork was said to be unavoidable. The present is a case in which we are not informed as to how rupee one is computed, how three call drops per day has been 3 (2016) 7 SCC 703 | 2016 INSC 410
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 arrived at, or why the calling party alone is provided compensation. These matters go out of mere guesswork, and into the realm of unreasonableness, as obviously, as has been held by us, there was no intelligent care and deliberation before any of these parameters have been fixed.
69. We have already seen that the impugned Regulation is dated 16-10-2015, which was to come into force only on 1-1-2016. We have been shown a technical paper issued by the same Authority on 13-11-2015 i.e. a few days after the impugned Regulation, in which the Authority has itself recognised that 36.9% of call drops take place because of the fault at the consumer's end. Instead of having a relook at the problem in the light of the said technical paper, the Authority has gone ahead with the impugned Regulation, which states that the said Regulation has been brought into force because of deficiency of service by service providers leading to call drops. The very basis of this statement contained in the Explanatory Memorandum to the impugned Regulation is found by the selfsame Authority to be incorrect only a few days after publishing the impugned Regulation. This itself shows the manifest arbitrariness on the part of TRAI, which has not bothered to have a relook into the said problem. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find that the impugned Regulation is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14, and is an unreasonable restriction on the right of the appellants' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on business, and is therefore struck down as such."
8.29. By relying on Cellular Operators' case, he submits that unreasonable acts done without application of mind amounts to manifestly being arbitrary and in that regard the CAC having
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 approved the impugned ordinance against statutory practice is without any application of mind and is manifestly arbitrary requiring to be quashed.
8.30. Apart from the ordinance being manifestly arbitrary in law, its implementation is also manifestly arbitrary in practice. In this regard, his submission is that the evaluators are not properly trained. If at all they had been trained in evaluation and had competency in the subject, there could not be such a wide gap between the valuations done by different valuators. A 15% difference is considerably large. Taking into account the seriousness of the education of a student, such a wide gap in valuation can only be said to be arbitrary. There can be no other explanation for the same.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 8.31. The first valuer awarded 51 marks, the second valuer awarded 40 marks, the third valuer awarded 40 marks, and the fourth valuer awarded 52 marks. The tabular statement of each of the valuer's marks for each question is as per Annexure-D1 and the same is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Question EVALUATION LEVEL No. I II III IV V 1 5 4 4 7 - 2 5 4 3 6 - 3 5 4 3 5 - 4 5 4 3 4 - 5 6 4 4 5 - 6 5 4 5 5 - 7 5 4 4 5 - 8 5 4 4 5 - 9 5 4 5 5 - 10 5 4 5 5 - TOTAL 51 40 40 52 -
8.32. Valuer 1 and valuer 4 awarded 51 and 52 marks respectively, but the marks which have been awarded for different questions and answers inter se between them is also different. Thus, his submission is that there is no
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 consistency in the valuation made by valuer 1 and valuer 4.
8.33. Similar is the submission made as regards the marks awarded by valuer 2 and valuer 3, both of whom awarded total marks of 40, but marks awarded to each of the answers is different, by placing reliance on the aforesaid table. The valuation by the fourth valuer is also arbitrary. 8.34. The methodology of valuation of the theory papers and the same being arbitrary, is also established by the difference in the marking of the theory and practicals. The petitioner, having secured 43 out of 50 in practicals, has been declared failed in theory. The petitioner having secured 86% in practical's, has been awarded less than 50% in theory. 8.35. The entire marking and evaluation system of the respondent University is flawed. The cause
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 for this, he submits, is the absence of a model key or any objective benchmark, there being no efficacy or transparency in the digital evaluation process. If a model answer key had been provided to all the valuators, there could have been some consistency in the marking. The marking by the evaluators is subjective and arbitrary and has caused immense harm and injury to the petitioner. The model answer key, if provided, the valuation could have been verified. Since no such model evaluation key has been provided, there is no methodology to verify the evaluation to be correct or not, and as such, the subjective valuation by the valuers has been accepted, which is not in the interest of either the University or the students. 8.36. In this regard, he refers to the meeting of the AC on 28.06.2024, where the AC had deliberated upon providing of answer keys,
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 which he submits indicates that even the AC is of the opinion that model key has to be provided to cater to these kind of situations. 8.37. Lastly, he submits that University on 11.09.2024 had issued certain guidelines for double evaluation system in UG examination, in terms of which, if there is a deviation evaluation by two evaluators, the same would be sent to the third evaluator and the highest of the best two total marks awarded by the three evaluators for the paper rounded off to the nearest value would be considered in the final computation of marks.
8.38. Prior to 11.09.2024, he submits that both UG and PG evaluation was conducted in a similar manner. Now post 11.09.2024, the valuation for UG is done differently in as much as the valuation is done by two evaluators and the highest of the two evaluators is taken into
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 consideration whereas for PG, there is valuation done by four valuers, and on deviation, referred to a fifth valuer, the average of the highest 4 valuations is taken for computation of results. 8.39. Similarly, he submits that the PG student would also have to be treated like the UG student, and the best of the marks awarded by all the evaluators is required to be taken into consideration. If that were to be done, the fifth evaluator having awarded 55 marks, valuer 1 and valuer 4 having awarded 51 and 52 marks respectively, if three of the highest valuations is taken out of five, then the average would lead to the petitioner having passed the examination.
8.40. This, he submits, is without prejudice to the earlier argument that the fifth valuer, being a senior person having more competence, it is the valuation of the fifth valuer alone which
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 would have to be taken into consideration, which would lead to the petitioner having passed the exam.
8.41. As regards prejudice, he submits that the petitioner had taken readmission and appeared for the examination conducted in the month of August, and this Court, vide order dated 13-8- 2024, having observed that the petition being required to be decided on merits, the petitioner's participation in any examination will not prejudice his case as canvassed in the petition. If the petitioner were now declared to be failed, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, which is not the purport and intent of the order dated 13-8-2024. On the basis of all the above submissions, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed.
9. Sri. Madhusudhana R. Naik, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University, submits that,
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 9.1. From May 2015 onwards, the University introduced digital evaluation system for all answer scripts of all examinations in the health sciences subject. In order to bring clarity to the procedure of evaluation, the Syndicate of the University in its 140th meeting held on 28-02- 2019 promulgated an Ordinance called, "Ordinance Governing Post-Graduation, including PG Diploma and Super-Specialty Answer Scripts Evaluation", which came into effect for all examinations conducted on or after 01-03-2019.
9.2. In terms of the said ordinance, as per Clause 3(i)(a) General Valuation would mean four evaluations conducted by four independent valuators of a particular theory answer script. Clause 4(a) prescribes the procedure for general valuation, as per which all answer scripts of postgraduate including PG diploma
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 and super speciality courses in Medical/Dental/ Homeopathy shall be subjected to Digital Valuation as prescribed by the RGUHS and the average of the total marks awarded by the four evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be taken into consideration for computing the results. 9.3. In terms of Clause 3(ii)(a), which deals with Deviation Valuation, he submits that in case of deviation between total marks awarded by any two valuators in the General Valuation is equal to or more than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, then it would be referred to a fifth evaluator.
9.4. In terms of Clause 5, all the answer scripts would be referred to the fifth valuator and the average of the best four total marks for the paper awarded by the five evaluators rounded
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 off to the nearest value shall be considered for final computation of the results. 9.5. This system, he submits has been in existence for all the examinations conducted on or after 01-03-2019, which was to the knowledge of the petitioner when he took up the course and appeared for the examination held in the month of October, 2023 and cleared two papers out of three.
9.6. The third paper in Advanced Teaching of Fundamentals of Homeopathy, not having been cleared, he appeared for the second attempt, where there being a deviation, was referred to the fifth valuator, and the aforesaid procedure was followed.
9.7. The petitioner therefore cannot question either the ordinance or the clauses thereof. The relief now sought for that it is only the marks
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 awarded by the fifth evaluator which would have to be taken into consideration is not sustainable.
9.8. The present matter relates to Post-graduation, which requires a thesis or dissertation with detailed commentary and as such, the said examination is not conducted on objective type questions and therefore it is difficult to provide model answers for the descriptive type questions. There being more than 3000 number of question paper codes for various Post- graduate and Undergraduate courses and each question paper code minimum 10 numbers of question paper sets have to be prepared by the University, preparation of model key answers for all the above is not practical. Hence the claim of the petitioner that model valuations scripts have to be provided, cannot be accepted.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 9.9. The Ordinance providing that there is no revaluation after the 5th valuation, there is no scope of judicial review of the said ordinance by this court in writ jurisdiction which is permissible and in this regard, he relies upon the Order dated 17.12.2021 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vishweshwara C Vs. Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Anr.4 more particularly, paras 28 to 34 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"28. The respondent-University is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be necessary to maintain standard of education or in a given situation to enhance the standard of education. Therefore, the Constitutional Courts cannot be expected to presume that the Ordinance setting up a particular method of evaluation is unconstitutional nor the Courts can substitute their own opinion as against an expert's opinion which is ratified by a competent authority.
29. If the significant details referred to in the preceding paragraphs are taken into consideration, the petitioners have failed to make out a case indicating on what grounds the Ordinance stands vitiated. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the Court 4 W.P.No.9619/2021 | 2021:KHC:43614
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 cannot usurp or abdicate the parameters of judicial review and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and acceded.
30. The Apex Court in Basavaiah(Dr.) .vs. Dr.H.L. Ramesh(2010) 8 SCC 372 has held as follows:-
"28. The scope of interference in academic matters has been examined by the Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640, the Court held as under:-
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters."
The Supreme Court in another judgment reported as University Grants Commission vs. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519, held that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts of the Court. The Apex Court has held as under:
"31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491; Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC 546; and, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.9729 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12147 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12218 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12403 of 2018 opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
The Apex Court in All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726, has held as under:
"16.The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.
17.The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in.
Further, at Paragraphs 26 to 27 has observed thus:
"26. This Court also repeatedly held that courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain this court held: [(2007) 4 SCC 737, para 16] 33 "16] "16....Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review..."
27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious."
31. If the Committee of a Academic Council and the Syndicate of the respondent- University have acted in a fair manner and if the Ordinance is free from the taint of unreasonableness, there is no scope for judicial review. Policy 34 decisions in the matters affecting the policies and administration relating to medical courses should be rather left to the wisdom of experts formulating the policies relating to maintaining standard of education in the field of medicine. The present Ordinance under challenge thoroughly contains an academic element and therefore, this Court cannot encroach upon and test the wisdom of experts and also encroach into the inherent jurisdiction of experts body who are vested with power to revive, revamp the policies relating to the academics.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024
32. The Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala .vs. N.M.Thomas reported in (1976) 2 SCC 310 has held that discretion is the essence of classification. Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. The doctrine of equality founded under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is amongst equals. Classification is, therefore to be founded 35 on substantial differences which distinguishes persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. This equality of opportunity cannot be confused by equating different class of groups. In the present case on hand, the petitioners are insisting that the respondent-University should also adopt four valuation system to the Undergraduates. This Court is unable to understand as to how the policies which are formulated to conduct exams in respect of PG students can be adopted to the UG students also. There is no discrimination among equals as PG students constitute a totally different class and the magnitude of the students pursuing UG course cannot be compared to those pursuing PG course. Therefore, the policy in regard to evaluation of answer scripts of UG students would stand on totally different footing. This Court is unable to understand as to how the petitioners who have failed in subjects can question the Ordinance and also suggest as to how the evaluation of 36 the papers has to be conducted by the respondent-University. Any indulgence by this Court in this regard would only lead to catastrophe and would lead to compromise to standards in medical education.
33. This Court is also not inclined to entertain the claim made by the students as to how the deviation valuation is to be adopted. The petitioners claim that while determining deviation, the respondent-University should take into consideration the difference in award of
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 marks between two valuations and not difference in award of marks between two valuators as against maximum marks prescribed for the paper. I am unable to understand as to how the petitioners can insist that the deviation valuation has to be done in a particular manner when more particularly the Committee of Academic CouncilAcademic Council, the Syndicate and also the Advisory Board of Medical Council of India have approved the method of double valuation system and also have approved the deviation valuation.
34. The medical students are placed at a higher pedestal on account of their crucial role in the health care system of the society. Therefore, the students who are pursuing medicine have to maintain high academic integrity. Medical students have to work hard and earn their degrees in a fair and honest way by putting in the hours to study and complete assignments. Then only the students can gain the good worth of medical education and would contribute a lot to the health care system of the society. Maintaining academic integrity while earning a medical degree represents true academic accomplishments. It is this credibility and work ethics which would take a medical doctor a long way at his work place and at the end of the day it is the patient who would benefit. Therefore, medical students cannot insist for lowering the education standards and therefore, the challenge to the impugned Ordinance has to fail." 9.10. By placing reliance on Vishweshwara C's case, his submission is that writ courts cannot form their own opinion against an ordinance passed by educational institutions effectuated by a team of experts ratified by the competent
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 authority, in the background of there existing no mala fides against the expert committee, and in that regard ought not to interfere in matters relating to academia unless a policy or act is illegal in the eyes of law. 9.11. He also relies on the order dated 28-10-2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. Chandana B. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences5 more particularly paras 15 to 20 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"15. That apart, it is well settled principle in law that the judicial review in respect of the educational matters is limited and this Court, though has extraordinary writ remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall be restrained from interfering with the affairs of conducting the examination, valuation, scrutiny of answer-scripts by the examiners, etc. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIKESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2021)2 SCC 309, wherein at paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment, it is observed thus:5
W.P.No.12989/2022 | 2022:KHC:36255
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 "14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-
evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur & Anr.) Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [see-Basavaiah(Dr.) v. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.). Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh &Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
15. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
16. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
16. It is also useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS v. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2020)6 SCC 362, wherein at paragraphs 23 and 26 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"23. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates- particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow. The previous decisions of the court have constantly underscored that in the absence of any provision for re- evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised -
preferably under exceptional circumstances. A three judge Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) held as follows:
"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer- book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his marks."
26. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re- valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justified the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly in the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. If there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of that panel, the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer the disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was not done; the "corrections" indicated by the single judge were accepted by the BSSC; several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division Bench, thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh, compounding the matter further by not referring the disputed questions to any panel of experts. We are left reiterating the lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the High Court's interference has not resulted in finality "to the result of the examinations" despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertainty about the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter se seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux."
17. In the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 OTHERS reported in (2018)2 SCC 357, at paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5.
In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question."
18. It is also notable to extract the law declared by this Court in the case of MOAZAM SHAH KHAN AND OTHERS v. VICE- CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2022 KAR 1146, has observed thus:
"6. That leaves me with the only other question, namely, whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for revaluation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student. The University may also provide for revaluation and recognise that the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of one examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such scheme would take care of situations where the marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the valuation by one examiner followed by revaluation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently evaluate the scripts and the average of the two is awarded to the candidate."
(underlining emphasised)
19. Applying the aforementioned declaration of law by this Court, as well as by the Hon'ble
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 Supreme Court to the case on hand, Ordinance of 2012 is applicable to the case of the petitioners seeking revaluation by a third examiner or a fifth examiner, as the case may be, in view of Definition 2(ii) of the Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012 specifically providing for students whose difference of marks between the first and second examiner is ≥15% or ≥10% in respect of Under-graduate and Post-graduate courses respectively. In view of my opinion supra, if the difference in total marks between First and Second examiner is ≥15% or ≥10%, such answer-scripts shall be revaluated by a Third or Fifth examiner as the respondent- University's Ordinance provides for third valuation/Third examiner in view of difference of ≥15% or ≥10% between the First and Second examiner. I also find force in the submission made by Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University, that the total marks obtained by the student is to be taken into consideration while referring to the third examiner for revaluation, as the intention of Policy makers or Syndicate of the respondent-University is clear and unambiguous to consider total marks of two examiners and not the individual marks in a specific question of the answer-script, and on this count also, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
20. Insofar as the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of descriptive/subjective type of questions, it is needless to say that this Court, in the case of MENAKA MOHAN AND OTHERS (supra), has elaborately considered the requirement of the key answers and has accordingly directed the respondent-University. In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be made in these writ petitions. In the result, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed." 9.12. By relying on Ms. Chandana B's case, he submits that the scope of interference of writ
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 courts under the Article 226 jurisdiction is very narrow in matters relating to the conducting of examination, valuation or scrutiny of answer scripts by the examiners unless there is a patent lack of rationality and reasoning. The impugned ordinance governing the valuation procedures of the examinees is out of the scope of this court to adjudicate upon and thus the ordinance cannot be interfered with at the hands of this Court.
9.13. Insofar as the corrigendum having been approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar without approval of the CAC, AC and Syndicate, he submits that in the agenda for the meeting of the CAC to be held on 21-02- 2019, as per note 17, it is clearly stated that the Ordinances Governing valuations of UG and PG were to be considered.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 9.14. It is only by oversight that in the minutes of the CAC meeting, PG Ordinance was not mentioned, though discussions and deliberations were held in relation thereto. This having been noticed, when the draft of the minutes of the meeting was placed for approval, changes were effected, and on the same day, corrigendum was issued. 9.15. Similarly, the omission of the word PG was also noticed when the draft of the minutes of meeting of Syndicate was placed for approval, and immediately on the very same day, on 23- 03-2019, a Corrigendum was issued. 9.16. The responsible officers like the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, having observed the inadvertent omission, have taken necessary action. The AC holding meeting twice in a year, first in the month of May-June and second in the month of October-November, in the first
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 meeting held on 17-06-2019 for the year 2019, the Agenda Subject No.1 discloses that notifications were issued based on decision of the Syndicate, on recommendation of the Committee of Academic Council as approved by the Academic Council., Clause No.13, the subject refers to Ordinance Governing Valuation of answer scripts of PG and UG, these were placed for ratification and were so ratified by the Academic Council.
9.17. As such, no case can be made out on the basis of the alleged corrigendum being issued, subsequently, the ordinances being in force acted upon and approved by the AC and Syndicate from the year 2019, only because the petitioner has failed in a subject, the ordinance cannot be questioned.
9.18. From the year 2019, thousands of students have been evaluated as per the ordinances of
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 both the UG and PG. If the said ordinances were now, on the basis of an improbable argument of the petitioner, be considered not to be enforceable, the valuations done of all the PG students from 2019 till date, would have to be set aside. The petitioner is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill on a technicality of a corrigendum being issued.
9.19. The corrigendum, though signed by the Vice-
Chancellor and Registrar, has been approved by the AC and Syndicate. The petitioner has also been evaluated under the Ordinance of the year 2019 pertaining to PG, and as such, the petitioner cannot question the same. 9.20. When the ordinance holds the field, the question of the marks allotted by the fifth evaluator prevailing over the marks allotted by the other evaluators would not arise. The ordinance providing for average of the four top
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 evaluations, it is the ordinance which would apply and every student is bound by it. There cannot be a separate mechanism developed for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to pass the subject in which he has failed. 9.21. Insofar as the discrepancy in the evaluation of the practical's and theory, he submits that the very same argument would advance the transparency of the University inasmuch as when the petitioner has done well in the practicals, he has been awarded more marks. When the petitioner has not done well in theory, he has been awarded less marks. 9.22. The action of awarding of such marks being proper and correct, being done properly and as per the ordinance, there being transparency in the procedure adopted, the petitioner cannot challenge the same in the manner so done. The methodology provided under the ordinance
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 cannot be changed for the petitioner to now be awarded the highest marks awarded by the 5th valuer.
9.23. He submits that it could happen that the 5th valuer could have awarded lesser marks. In that event, the student's interest would suffer if the lesser marks is awarded. As such, it is the top four evaluations which are taken into consideration while computing the results, thus providing better chances to the student. 9.24. The question paper and answers being subjective in nature, there's always a possibility of a slight difference in the marks awarded by different valuers. That is why a system of averaging the marks has been adopted by the University. All these being for the benefit of the students and furthering the possibility of the student being awarded the right marks, the petition seeking for a different mechanism
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 cannot be accepted and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard Sri. Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Madhusudhana R. Nayak, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent University and perused the papers.
11. The points that would arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the impugned ordinance was passed in contravention to sub-section 3 of section 5 of the RGUHS Act, 1994?
ii. Does the Vice-Chancellor or Registrar have the power to sign & issue a corrigenda without the approval of the Academic Council or the Committee of Academic Council and the Syndicate?
iii. Whether the decision taken by the Academic Council in the meeting dated 17.06.2019 be regarded as done without the necessary application of mind?
iv. Whether the impugned ordinance could be regarded as being manifestly arbitrary? v. Whether the 15% difference in the evaluation of the petitioner's answer sheets be construed as manifestly arbitrary in practice?
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 vi. Would the assistance of a model answer key/paper be necessary in the background of evaluation for a post-graduate degree, and would the lack thereof have prejudiced the petitioner herein? vii. What Order?
12. I answer the above points as under:
13. Answer to Point No. (i):- Whether the impugned ordinance was passed in contravention to sub-section 3 of section 5 of the RGUHS Act, 1994?
13.1. Section 35 of the RGUHS Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"35. Ordinances.
(1)The Syndicate may, from time to time, make Ordinances and amend or repeal the same.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinance may provide for the following matters, namely:-
(a) admission of the students to the University and its affiliated colleges and the levy of fees for admission to the University, colleges and University laboratories;
(b) courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University;
(c) conditions under which students shall be admitted to the courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions of the University;
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024
(d) conduct of examinations of the University and the conditions under which students shall be admitted to such examinations;
(e) manner in which exemption relating to admission of students to examination may be given;
(f) conditions, mode of appointment and duties of examining bodies and examiners;
(g) maintenance of discipline among students;
(h) fees to be charged for various courses of study, research, experiment and practical training and for admission to various university examinations;
(i) all other matters which by this Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided by the Ordinances.
(3) In making an Ordinance the Syndicate shall consult,-
(a) the Boards of Studies in matters relating to the appointment and duties of examiners; and
(b) the Academic Council in matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students. (4)Every Ordinance made by the Syndicate shall have effect from such date as the Syndicate may specify, and every Ordinance so made shall be submitted to the Chancellor and the senate for information."
13.2. Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS Act deals with the making of an ordinance. 13.3. The ordinance making power being vested with the Syndicate. The Syndicate is required
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 to consult the Board of Studies in matters relating to the appointment and duties of examiners. The Syndicate would have to consult the Academic Council in matters relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students. 13.4. In the present matter, we are not dealing with the appointment and duties of examiners. Therefore, the consultation of the Board of Studies would not arise.
13.5. The present matter relating to conduct or standard of examination in terms of the marks to be secured and the requirements to pass the exam. The Syndicate before making the ordinance is required to consult the Academic Council.
13.6. The submission of Shri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present matter, it is the CAC, who is a committee
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 appointed which has considered the matter and made a recommendation. This recommendation has been blindly followed by the Academic Council by granting approval, the minutes of the meeting of the AC does not indicate any particular discussion as regards the recommendation made by the CAC. 13.7. The approval of the AC having been placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate has also issued the approval for issuance of ordinance. Thus, his submission is that there is no consultation, let alone effective consultation, which has occurred blindly following what has been recommended by the CAC and approved by the AC would not constitute consultation on part of the Syndicate for issuance of the ordinance.
13.8. This submission would have to be now tested by the records, which have been produced.
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 There is no dispute as regards the CAC having considered the matter in detail and recommendation for issuance of ordinance. 13.9. In its meeting held on 21.02.2019, the same being reflected in Agenda No.17. Agenda No.17 deals with the ordinance that governs valuations of UG and PG courses. The drafts of both the ordinances were also annexed along with the meeting. The Agenda for the meeting of the Academic Council to be held on 17.06.2019 had been issued on 11.06.2019. 13.10. The Academic Council, in the meeting held on 17.06.2019, approved the recommendation of the CAC Academic Council by approving the ordinance governing Post Graduation and Diploma including super speciality evaluation as also the ordinance governing Post Graduation including Diploma and super speciality evaluation as also ordinance
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 governed Under Graduation valuation. These ordinances were placed for approval before the Syndicate, which considered the same in its 140th Meeting held on 27.02.2019 and approved both the aforesaid ordinances. In pursuance thereof, on 01.03.2019, the ordinances came into effect and operation. It is only now that the petitioner challenges the recommendation made by the CAC, approval by the AC and the subsequent approval by the Syndicate.
13.11. The only contention of the petitioner is that there is no effective consultation and or consultation by the Syndicate with the Academic Council as required under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS Act as indicated supra.
13.12. From the records, it is found that the committee of the Academic Council had
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 considered all the aspects, a draft of the ordinances had been prepared. They were placed for discussion and approval before the Academic Council. The Academic Council, having gone through the same has approved it. This approval can also be governed in the manner in which the minutes have been recorded, inasmuch as for some of the agenda items, there are comments of the Academic Council, which have been recorded and directions of the Academic Council to the Vice- Chancellor and or the Registrar, which have been recorded. Thus, indicating that there is considerable application of mind on part of the Academic Council as regards the various items which had been brought before the Academic Council. The decision of the Academic Council is not a judicial order or a quasi-judicial order, requiring detailed reasons to be recorded.
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 13.13. The Academic Council is not required to give reasons for acceptance or rejection of a recommendation of the CAC. Though, it may be advisable that some of these discussions are recorded in the minutes in detail, in law they are not necessary to be so recorded. The fact remains that the Academic Council has approved the recommendation of the CAC. This recommendation of the Academic Council was placed before the Syndicate, which approved the same. The resolution of the Syndicate does not contain reasons for approval of what was placed before the Syndicate.
13.14. A perusal of the minutes of the Syndicate would also indicate that there are certain directions and observations made by the Syndicate for certain matters. Merely because the word 'approved' has been used insofar as
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 this ordinance is concerned, would not mean that there is no deliberation or application of mind by the Syndicate.
13.15. Insofar as consultation per se is concerned, it is if there were any doubts as regards the recommendation, made by the AC would a necessity arise to have a discussion or a consultation between the Syndicate and the Academic Council. The Syndicate having accepted the recommendation made by the Academic Council in toto, there being no change. I am of the considered opinion that there was no further requirement of any consultation or discussion between the Syndicate and the Academic Council. 13.16. Thus, I answer point No (i) by saying that the recommendation of the CAC having been placed before the AC, the AC having
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 approved the ordinances and the same being placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate having approved the ordinances, there is no contravention of Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994.
14. Answer to Point No.(ii):-Does the Vice-
Chancellor or Registrar have the power to sign & issue a corrigenda without the approval of the Academic Council or the Committee of Academic Council and the Syndicate? 14.1. The CAC having deliberated and approved the ordinance for both Under Graduate and Post- Graduate courses. It is on that basis that the matter was placed before the AC. The AC having approved the recommendation of the CAC, would imply that it is both the UG and PG ordinance, which had been approved by the AC.
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 14.2. Subsequently, it was placed before the Syndicate, who had approved the same on 23.03.2019. When the drafts were being finalized, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar having realized the omission of the words 'Post Graduate' (PG) in the minutes and had prepared a corrigendum, which had been approved by the CAC, AC and the Syndicate and it is in that background that the ordinances were issued for both the courses, and the ordinances have been enforced from the year 2019.
14.3. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar being officers of the University discharge an executive function and are not policy makers per se. All the policy decisions as indicated above, would have to be recommended by the CAC, approved by the AC, and thereafter approved by the Syndicate. Thus, any change
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 in the policy is required to be carried out in the very same manner. The Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar by themselves would not have any power to make any change in the policy by issuance of a corrigenda or otherwise. 14.4. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar has/have no power to sign or issue corrigenda without the recommendation of the Committee of Academic Council, approved by the Academic Council and thereafter approved by the Syndicate. In this case, the agenda recommended by the CAC was as regards both Undergraduate and Postgraduate examination, which came to be approved by the Academic Council and thereafter by the Syndicate. 14.5. The correction by way of corrigenda has also been approved in a similar manner, has also followed the same process, the same having
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 been recommended by the CAC, approved by the AC and thereafter approved by the Syndicate and thereafter implemented by the University from the year 2019. As such, there is no infirmity in the corrigenda and or the manner in which the corrigenda has been issued.
14.6. The arguments of Mr. Nithin Ramesh cannot be accepted for one more reason, the PG Ordinance has been in force from the year 2019 and several exams having been held, if the corrigendum had not been approved by the CAC then the AC and thereafter the Syndicate, they would have raised an objection in relation thereto over the last 5 years, the same not having been done it is clear that they have approved and ratified the corrigendum.
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 14.7. Thus, I answer Point No. (ii) by holding that the Vice-Chancellor or Registrar do not have the power to sign & issue a corrigenda without the approval of the Academic Council or the Committee of Academic Council and the Syndicate. In this case the corrigenda has been approved by the Committee of Academic Council and thereafter by the Academic Council and then by the Syndicate as such no fault can be found.
15. Answer to Point No. (iii):-Whether the decision taken by the Academic Council in the meeting dated 17.06.2019 be regarded as done without the necessary application of mind? 15.1. The contention of Shri. Nitin Ramesh is similar to that addressed as regards the earlier two points. Inasmuch as the contention is that the AC has only approved the recommendation of the CAC and there is no application of mind.
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 The documents disclosed the recommendation made by the CAC and approval made by the AC. Though, this approval could have been more detailed.
15.2. I am of the considered opinion that the Academic Council consisting of more than 50 members, the agenda and the supporting documents have been sent to each of the members before the date of the meeting. The same would imply that the members have gone through the said materials and have approved the same in the meeting. It is not necessary that all discussions are recorded in the minutes of the meeting. It is only if there is any difference of opinion or if there is any particular recommendation or suggestion, which would be required to be separately recorded.
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 15.3. If it requires somebody to take any action, then the same will be recorded in the minutes. The minutes cannot be read figuratively to indicate every minute of the meeting to be recorded. It is only the broader aspects which would be recorded especially in meetings like that of a high-powered Academic Council or the Syndicate. The members of the AC, being high dignitaries having expertise in their respective fields, have unanimously approved the ordinances.
15.4. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that mainly because there are no reasons recorded in writing, would by itself not amount to non-application of mind. The Academic Council having approved the ordinances without making any observations and or issuing any further directions would indicate an application of mind and approval of the
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 ordinance in toto, more so when the Academic Council is dealing with these kinds of matters on a day to day basis and is aware of the intricacies and the nuances of matters relating to the evaluation, conduct and standards of examination etc. 15.5. Thus I answer to Point No. (iii) by holding that the decision taken by the AC in the meeting dated 17.06.2019 cannot be one which can be said to have been taken without the necessary application of mind.
16. Answer to Point No. (iv):-Whether the impugned ordinance could be regarded as being manifestly arbitrary?
16.1. The contention of learned counsel Sri. Nitin Ramesh appearing for the petitioner is that the ordinance providing for 4 evaluations and in the event of there being a deviation of 15% in the marking, the answer script being
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 recommended to the 5th evaluator, the answer script being required to be referred to the 5th evaluator, the averaging of 4 top evaluations is manifestly arbitrary. 16.2. The submission in this regard is that the answer script having been referred to a more senior person designated as the 5th evaluator, it is the evaluation made by the 5th evaluator, which has to be taken into consideration and in this case, if so done, the petitioner is to be declared as passed and as such, this Court is required to pass an order, which is student friendly especially to that of the petitioner. 16.3. The validity of the ordinance as indicated above has been upheld, the ordinance provides for four evaluations and if there is a deviation of 15% of marks between any two evaluators, the same could be referred to a 5th evaluator.
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 16.4. If the argument of learned counsel Shri. Nitin Ramesh were to be accepted and it is only the evaluation of the 5th evaluator, which is to be taken into consideration. Then in the event of 5th evaluator giving lesser marks, the student would have failed. Of course, if the 5th evaluator has given higher marks, the student having more than passing marks, the student would have passed.
16.5. The examination, which is the subject matter of the present petition is for Post Graduation students including Diploma and super speciality evaluations for Medical, Dental, Ayush, Physiotherapy, Nursing, Pharmacy, Health Sciences, Yoga and Naturopathy, thus as rightly pointed out by Shri Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel is that the questions are theoretical/subjective in nature, the answers are required to be given in detail.
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 16.6. The evaluation not being an exact science, there is a possibility of one evaluator differing from the other in awarding different marks. It is in that background that he has submitted that the number of evaluators being more and the averaging of marks, allotted by such evaluators is beneficial for the students. Since the student would get the average of the highest marks awarded by different evaluators, thereby increasing the chances of being successful in the examination. I am in agreement with the submission made by Shri Madhusudhana R. Naik, learned Senior Counsel.
16.7. In fact, if it was only the marks awarded by one evaluator, that is the Evaluator No. V were to be taken into consideration, then the same would have turned out to be manifestly
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 arbitrary after the answer script having been evaluated by four other evaluators previously. 16.8. The whole purpose of having multiple evaluators as indicated above is to see that the student gets the benefit of doubt. He is to see that the process of examination is conducted in such a manner that no student gets an undue benefit in the evaluation process.. If there is an undue disadvantage, four evaluators having applied their mind, the top three evaluations being taken into account would normally be in the interest of both the education system and the student. If there is a deviation of 15% as indicated above, a 5th evaluator being appointed, it is the top four marks of all the five evaluators which is taken into consideration. This again, in my considered opinion averages out any discrepancies between different evaluators and
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 the averaging of the top four evaluations would be beneficial for the student. 16.9. Inasmuch as by taking into account the top four evaluations, the lowest evaluation is already excluded. Such being the case, I do not agree with the submission made by Sri. Nitin Ramesh that the ordinance is manifestly arbitrary on account of the above. 16.10. I find the ordinance to be favourable for the student and also sufficiently strong enough to support a robust education system. This Court while considering the matters of education and marks of the student is not concerned with passing student-friendly orders, but it is required to pass orders in accordance with the applicable law. More so, when it is these students, who later on go out in life and treat other human beings for their disease, medical neccessities or the like, since in the present
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 matter, all the students governed by the postgraduate ordinance become doctors of the human body. This court is required to balance the immediate needs of the student and that of the future needs of the patients of those students on they becoming doctors. It is therefore required that competent persons pass the course and treat the patients properly.
16.11. Hence, I answer Point No. (iv) by holding that the impugned ordinance is not manifestly arbitrary but is in consonance with the applicable law.
17. Answer to Point No. (v):- Whether the 15% difference in the evaluation of the petitioner's answer sheets be construed as manifestly arbitrary in practice?
17.1. The submission of Shri Nitin Ramesh learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evaluators have not been appointed properly. There is no
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 training for the evaluators, the quality of the evaluators is not proper and or monitored and that is the reason why there is a 15% difference in the evaluation by different evaluators. Thus, he submits that there is a manifest arbitrary practice followed by the evaluators in the evaluation of the papers. 17.2. There is some substance in the submission made by Shri. Nitin Ramesh, inasmuch as there cannot be such a difference of evaluation by the evaluators of the same question and or of the same answer script. Though the questions are not multiple-choice questions, but are theoretical questions requiring detailed answers and though Medical Science is not an exact science, but the protocols which are required to be followed and or used in Medical Science are more or less common.
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 17.3. The description and or theory of any particular medical aspect are also common. The textbooks relating to that particular subject also being common. It would be difficult for any evaluator to value the answer script in such a manner that the evaluation made by such an evaluator has a differential of 15% of the maximum marks of the subject. That is to say, if the maximum marks of the subject are not equal to the maximum marks of the answer script, then the evaluation for a particular subject is out of 100, if evaluator number one has given marks of 50, then the other evaluator, to qualify for the 15% differential should have given marks of 35 since this 15% differential is being taken into consideration on the basis of the maximum marks awarded and not the differential between two evaluators.
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 17.4. Thus, if there is such a huge difference of marks between one evaluator and another evaluator amounting to 15% of the maximum marks for the said subject as regards the valuation of the same answers to the same questions by different evaluators, I am of the considered opinion that such a situation would have to be addressed by the University in a proper and logical manner.
17.5. Though in the present case on account of the averaging of four evaluators, the differential of 15% has gone away, that being the lowest mark, the fact remains that though no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the present matter, there is a differential of 15% between two evaluators for the same question and same answer which cannot be accepted. It would therefore be required for the University to conduct necessary training
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 programs as to the manner in which the evaluation has to be conducted so as to ensure the sanctity of the examination system is maintained.
17.6. The evaluators or the University need not be student friendly. The evaluator only would have to work on how to value the answer script in a proper manner and to see to it that there is uniformity in the marks awarded by each of the evaluators.
17.7. I answer point No.(v) by holding that the 15% difference in the evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner by two different evaluators is manifestly arbitrary. However, on account of a 5th evaluator having been appointed and the lowest marks not being taken into consideration for averaging the marks of
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 the petitioner, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.
17.8. The university is directed to carry out necessary training of the evaluators before being given the work of evaluation such that they discharge their duties in a proper manner.
18. Answer to Point No. (vi): Would the assistance of a model answer key/paper be necessary in the background of evaluation for a post- graduate degree, and would the lack thereof have prejudiced the petitioner herein? 18.1. The submission of Shri. Nitin Ramesh learned counsel for the petitioner is that if a model answer paper is provided to the evaluators, they would be in a better position to evaluate the papers properly and if such model answer key or model answer paper is put in a public domain, the students could also verify from the answer key if they have answered
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 properly. This would bring about transparency in the examination process, make the examination more robust and the evaluation of the answer script proper and transparent. 18.2. Shri. Madhusudhan Naik learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University would submit that this aspect has already been considered by the Academic Council in its meeting held on 10th June, 2024 at Agenda item No.6.
18.3. The discussion on Agenda Item No. 6 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6 Any other matter permission to the chair 6(1) Decision regarding offering key Answers/Model Answers for Descriptive type of questions in Health Science Courses.
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is conducting Theory and Practical Examinations for various courses in Health Sciences. The format of the question papers is in accordance with the ordinances of the relevant courses as per respective Apex Body regulations. Descriptive questions make up the majority of the exam questions. There are very few courses that combine descriptive and multiple-choice questions (MCQs). As the 'written questions' tests higher order cognitive processes, in a manner that multiple-choice questions
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 cannot, and consequently have higher validity and as the Long Essay, Short Essay, Short Answers are considered to be superior at 'testing' higher cognitive levels of knowledge and has greater validity particularly in the courses of High Education related to Health Sciences, the University is conducting its theory examinations with most of the questions in descriptive written format. Wherever, the apex body norms prescribe for objective type of question, the University has implemented MCQ questions and providing Key Answers for the purpose of evaluation.
Under RGUHS, there are around 3000+ question paper codes for different courses. Additionally, the university will produce a minimum of ten sets of question papers for each code of the question papers. Furthermore, framing the model answers for "the descriptive essay type questions" is challenging, especially in the health science courses. For this reason, the Key Answers for subjective type answers in health science course examinations are not being offered.
At present, University is providing Key Answers for MCQ questions wherever the MCQ pattern questions are there. Even for this small segment, University is receiving queries on the Key Answers referring to various sources of information/text books. In such situations, there would be a significant number of queries, if the key answers or Model answer is implemented for descriptive type of questions.
However, University is witnessing that many students are filing writ petition before the Hon'ble Courts seeking Key- Answers or Model Answers even for Descriptive type of questions. The university must have a clear stand regarding the provision of Key-Answers or Model Answers for questions that are descriptive. Hence, the subject is placed before the Academic Council in its meeting to be held on 11.06.2024 for deliberation and decision regarding providing key answer to descriptive type of questions in Health Science Courses being conducted under RGUHS Academic council constituted by the experts across the Deliberation different faculties deliberated this issue in length and the Academic council has discussed as follows:-
1. There is always multiple way of presenting the knowledge and innovative approaches will be deprived of
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 marks if we restrict to key answers. The current assessment pattern with multiple assessors has reduced the chances of any individual idiosyncrasies of an examiner influencing the results of a student
2. Keywords are the words and phrases that people use in search engines/articles to find what they're looking for. The keywords for a particular question set by a qualified expert may not always match with the other experts. The students themselves may challenge the given keywords depending on his varied source of knowledge or learning as stated above. Each student reads from a textbook of his choice and there are multiple authors. This may lead to multiple disputes regarding to correctness of the keywords by both students and faculty.
3. 'Are we failing the system by passing the students' is a concern. If a student presents an answer based on the most recent knowledge based on journal articles and if the key answer does not feature it, imagine the loss to that student. Medicine is an eclectic field with new knowledge coming in everyday and the shelf life of gold standards is drastically reducing. If we force key answers then various sticky issues are expected to stare at, as a result of formation of specific patterns as explained by Complex adaptive systems.
4. The students are expected to know about recent advances and their learning receives inputs from vast and varied sources such as text books, reference books, online free learning search engines, journal articles, newsletters and updates from international health agencies. The Learning as per the curriculum/syllabus for health science students is dynamic due to changing nature of subject
5. Rather than asking questions from the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy which encourage rote learning (recall), LAQs and SAQs are asked from the higher levels such as comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
6. Medical problems often have multiple valid approaches and solutions. Providing a key answers can imply there is only one correct way to address an issue, which is not reflective of real-world medical practice where diverse approaches are often required
7. The medical field requires professionals who can think on their feet, adapt to new information, and apply knowledge in varied situations. Training that relies on key
- 91 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 answers does not adequately prepare students for the complexities and uncertainties of medical practice. Hinders Critical Thinking Long essay questions are intended to assess a student's ability to think critically and develop their own reasoned responses. Key answers limit this by suggesting there is only one correct way to address the question.
8. Over all, avoiding the use of key answers for long essay questions promotes a more robust, equitable, and practical learning environment in medical education.
9. If rote learning is encouraged by giving key answers to the long and short essays, then the goals described by the various apex bodies will not be achieved, because the student will have a knowledge that the key answers are the only way to solve the clinical conditions. 18.4. He submits that there are around 3,000 + question paper codes for different courses at RGUHS and a minimum of 10 sets of question papers being prepared for each code of question paper. Framing of model answers for the descriptive essay type question is challenging, especially in Health Science courses and as such, key answers are only provided for multiple choice questions and not for essay type questions.
18.5. He further submits that the Academic Council having considered and deliberated on all these
- 92 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 issues has come to a conclusion that for essay type questions, the answer keys shall not be given or provided for the evaluators of any course. However, key answers shall be provided for multiple-choice questions and on that basis, he submits that the Academic Council, which is the expert body in the field having considered this aspect and negated the requirement to provide model-key answers and that such decisions may not be interfered with by this Court.
18.6. The submission of Shri Madhusudhana R. Naik learned Senior Counsel is that this is essentially a policy decision and the Academic Council being comprised of experts such decision made by the Academic Council ought not to be disturbed. What the Academic Council has taken into account is that there are more than 3,000 subjects codes, there
- 93 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 would be as regards each subject- 10 question papers to be prepared, thus there would be about 30,000 question papers and therefore, 30,000 model answer scripts and key answers, would have to be created per examination. This has been held to be administratively very difficult and as such, a policy decision was taken that model answers or key answers could not be provided. This decision has been taken purely on the basis of administrative difficulties. There are no other reason/s which has/ve been given except administrative difficulties, in my considered opinion the benefits of providing key answer/model answers have not been considered, the academic council has sought to negate its own responsibilities on the basis of administrative difficulties. The CAC, AC and the Syndicate as also the vast workforce of the university have been engaged to cater to these kind of
- 94 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 requirements and they are required to administer the university in a proper manner, needless to say they are also paid for it. 18.7. Providing key answers or model answers for an examination question paper is an essential practice in education that benefits students, teachers, examiners, and educational institutions. These solutions serve as benchmarks, guiding students on how to structure their responses, helping teachers maintain consistency in grading, and ensuring fairness and transparency in the assessment process.
18.8. Benefits for Students 18.8.1. Students are the primary beneficiaries of key answers and model solutions. These resources serve as powerful learning tools that enhance understanding, improve
- 95 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 answer-writing skills, and reduce exam- related stress.
18.8.2. Enhances Conceptual Understanding:
Model answers provide students with a clear explanation of complex topics, helping them grasp concepts they may have struggled with in class.
18.8.3. By analyzing detailed solutions, students can identify key points they missed and gain a better understanding of how to approach different types of questions.
18.8.4. They allow students to see the logical flow of information in an answer, helping them develop a structured approach to learning.
18.8.5. Facilitates Self-Assessment and Improvement: Key answers enable students to compare their responses with
- 96 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 the ideal answers, allowing them to assess their strengths and weaknesses. 18.8.6. By identifying gaps in their knowledge, students can work on improving specific areas where they struggle.
18.8.7. Self-assessment helps students take ownership of their learning process, making them more independent and proactive in their studies.
18.8.8. Improves Answer-Writing Skills: Many students struggle with structuring their answers effectively. Model answers provide a clear example of how to format responses for maximum impact.
18.8.9. They demonstrate the appropriate use of technical terminology, logical organization, and coherence in writing.
- 97 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.8.10. Students can learn how to balance depth and conciseness in their answers, ensuring they provide sufficient detail without unnecessary elaboration. 18.8.11. Boosts Confidence and Reduces Exam Anxiety: Knowing the correct answers and understanding how to present them reduces uncertainty and fear surrounding exams.
18.8.12. Students who practice with model answers feel more prepared and confident in their ability to perform well in tests. 18.8.13. Confidence gained through studying model answers can lead to better time management during exams, as students are less likely to panic or waste time on uncertain responses.
- 98 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.8.14. Promotes Fair and Objective Learning:
Model answers provide clarity on what is expected from students, ensuring that they prepare in the right direction.
18.8.15. By referring to standardized solutions, students can develop a sense of fairness in the grading process, reducing frustration over perceived inconsistencies in marking.
18.8.16. It helps students understand the rationale behind correct answers, making them more receptive to constructive feedback from teachers.
18.9. Benefits for Teacher:
18.9.1. Teachers play a crucial role in guiding students, and having access to key answers or model solutions makes their job more effective. These solutions help
- 99 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 streamline grading, improve instructional methods, and ensure students receive accurate guidance.
18.9.2. Ensures Consistency and Fairness in Grading: When multiple teachers are grading the same exam, variations in assessment criteria can lead to inconsistencies. Model answers help establish a standardized grading system. 18.9.3. Teachers can refer to the key answers to ensure uniform marking across different students, reducing the chances of bias or subjectivity.
18.9.4. Standardized grading minimizes disputes over marks, as students can compare their answers with the model solutions and understand where they went wrong.
- 100 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.9.5. Saves Time in Evaluation: Manually evaluating exams can be time-consuming, especially when assessing subjective answers. Model solutions provide a clear benchmark, speeding up the grading process.
18.9.6. Teachers can quickly cross-check student responses with the key answers instead of analyzing each answer from scratch. 18.9.7. By having predefined marking criteria, teachers can focus on providing feedback rather than spending excessive time determining whether an answer is correct. 18.9.8. Helps in Teaching and Classroom Discussions: Teachers can use model answers as reference materials in classroom discussions, helping students
- 101 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 understand how to frame their responses effectively.
18.9.9. They can provide students with insights into how examiners expect questions to be answered, improving overall classroom engagement.
18.9.10. Model solutions can also be used as templates for structuring assignments, essays, and reports, further strengthening students' academic skills.
18.9.11. Identifies Common Student Mistakes and Learning Gaps: By comparing student responses to model answers, teachers can pinpoint areas where students frequently make mistakes. 18.9.12. Understanding these common errors allows teachers to modify their teaching
- 102 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 methods to address weaknesses in students' understanding.
18.9.13. This insight enables teachers to provide targeted support to students, improving overall academic performance. 18.10. Benefits for Examiners and Institution 18.10.1. Educational institutions and examiners benefit from providing model answers as they help maintain academic integrity, standardize assessments, and enhance the credibility of the evaluation process.
18.10.2. Ensures Transparency in the
Evaluation Process: Model answers
make the grading process more
transparent, reducing student
- 103 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
complaints and challenges related to unfair marking.
18.10.3. Institutions that provide key answers promote a culture of academic integrity and fairness, improving their reputation. 18.10.4. Transparency in grading helps maintain trust between students, teachers, and administrators.
18.10.5. Standardizes Assessment Criteria:
Examiners use model answers to establish consistent grading rubrics, ensuring all students are evaluated based on the same criteria.
18.10.6. This standardization helps maintain the quality of education and ensures that academic qualifications are awarded fairly.
18.10.7. Standardized assessment criteria are particularly important in competitive
- 104 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 exams, where even minor differences in grading can impact student rankings. 18.10.8. Improves the Design of Future Examinations: Reviewing student performance against model answers helps examiners refine future question papers to ensure they accurately assess students' knowledge.
18.10.9. It allows educators to identify which types of questions are too easy, too difficult, or ambiguous, leading to more effective test design.
18.10.10. Institutions can use this data to improve the overall quality of education and ensure exams remain relevant to real- world applications.
18.10.11. Encourages Higher-Order Thinking Skills: Well-crafted model answers not
- 105 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 only provide correct information but also demonstrate critical thinking, analysis, and application of knowledge.
18.10.12. Students learn how to construct logical arguments, present evidence, and draw conclusions--skills that are essential for academic and professional success. 18.10.13. Institutions that emphasize detailed model answers contribute to the development of students' problem-solving and analytical abilities.
18.11. Providing key answers or model answers for an examination question paper is an essential practice that benefits students, teachers, and educational institutions. Students gain a deeper understanding of subjects, improve their answer-writing skills, and boost their confidence. Teachers benefit from streamlined
- 106 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 grading, consistent evaluation, and better instructional tools. Examiners and institutions enhance fairness, transparency, and the overall quality of assessments. 18.12. By integrating model answers into the learning and assessment process, educators create a more effective, transparent, and student- friendly academic environment. 18.13. Of course, there are also demerits in providing key answers or model answers some of which are:
18.14. Demerits for Students 18.14.1. Encourages Rote Memorization Instead of Conceptual Understanding:
One of the biggest drawbacks of providing model answers is that students may focus on memorizing them rather than understanding the underlying concepts.
- 107 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.14.2. Instead of developing problem-solving skills, students may simply try to reproduce the exact wording of the model answer in exams.
18.14.3. This approach limits creativity and critical thinking, making students dependent on prefixed responses instead of engaging in analytical reasoning.
18.14.4. Reduces Original Thinking and Analytical Skills: When students rely too much on model answers, they may not develop their own methods of answering questions.
18.14.5. It discourages independent thought, making students less likely to explore alternative perspectives or problem-
solving techniques.
- 108 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.14.6. In subjects like literature, history, and social sciences, where multiple valid interpretations exist, model answers may limit students' ability to form unique arguments.
18.14.7. Creates Over-Reliance on Model Answers: Some students may assume that only the model answers are acceptable and that any deviation from them will result in lower marks. 18.14.8. This discourages them from attempting to answer questions in their own words or explore different ways to structure responses.
18.14.9. If an exam contains questions that are not covered in the model answers, students who have overly relied on them may struggle to adapt.
- 109 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.14.10. Can Mislead Students if Not Designed Properly: If model answers are not well- crafted or fail to cover the full range of acceptable answers, they can mislead students into believing that only one specific approach is correct.
18.14.11. Poorly written key answers may contain inaccuracies or incomplete explanations, leading students to learn incorrect information.
18.14.12. If different sources provide conflicting model answers, students may become confused about which one is correct. 18.14.13. Reduces Effort and Critical Engagement: Some students may use model answers as shortcuts and avoid putting in the effort to fully engage with the subject material.
- 110 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.14.14. Rather than developing a deep understanding, students may skim through model answers just to know "what to write" without actually learning the "why" behind it.
18.14.15. This can lead to a superficial learning experience where students do not retain information for long-term use. 18.15. Demerits for Teachers 18.15.1. Limits Flexibility in Assessment: Model answers create a rigid standard that may prevent teachers from appreciating diverse ways of answering questions. 18.15.2. Students who think outside the box may not receive full marks if their responses do not closely match the model answer, even if their answers are valid.
- 111 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.15.3. This rigidity can discourage creativity and innovation in student responses. 18.15.4. Encourages a One-Size-Fits-All Approach to Grading: Teachers may become overly dependent on model answers when grading, focusing only on whether a student's response matches the key answer rather than evaluating the quality of reasoning.
18.15.5. This can disadvantage students who use different (but still correct) methods to answer a question.
18.15.6. Standardized model answers may not account for regional variations in understanding, interpretation, or expression, especially in subjects like language, history, and social sciences.
- 112 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.15.7. Can Be a Source of Conflict in Marking and Disputes: If students believe that their answer is correct but different from the model answer, it may lead to disputes over marks.
18.15.8. Teachers may struggle to justify why an answer deserves marks if it does not closely align with the model answer, even when the response is logically sound. 18.15.9. This can create tension between students and teachers, leading to unnecessary conflicts in the classroom.
18.15.10. May Reduce Teacher Creativity in Instruction: Some teachers may rely too much on model answers when teaching, simply instructing students to memorize them rather than explaining the concepts in-depth.
- 113 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.15.11. This can lead to monotonous and uninspiring teaching, reducing student engagement in the learning process. 18.15.12. Over-reliance on model answers may discourage teachers from developing new teaching methods or encouraging students to think beyond standardized solutions. 18.16. Demerits for Examiners and Educational Institutions 18.16.1. Can Undermine the Purpose of Examinations: The primary goal of examinations is to test students' understanding, analytical ability, and application of knowledge.
18.16.2. If students focus solely on memorizing model answers, exams become a test of recall rather than comprehension.
- 114 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.16.3. This defeats the purpose of education, which should aim at developing skills rather than rote learning.
18.16.4. Leads to a Narrow Focus in Learning:
Model answers often emphasize a specific way of answering a question, which may limit students' exposure to broader concepts and alternative perspectives.
18.16.5. Examiners may find that students only study specific parts of the syllabus that are reflected in model answers, neglecting other important areas.
18.16.6. This selective study approach can lead to gaps in knowledge, making students ill-
prepared for real-world applications of their subjects.
18.16.7. Encourages Predictable and Repetitive Exam Patterns: If students
- 115 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 know that model answers exist, they may predict which questions will appear in the exam and only study those topics. 18.16.8. This reduces the effectiveness of exams as a tool for measuring true understanding, as students focus on past questions rather than mastering the entire subject.
18.16.9. Institutions that rely heavily on model answers may find that students perform well in exams but struggle with real-world problem-solving.
18.16.10. Hampers Academic Integrity and Encourages Plagiarism: When students have access to model answers, some may copy them word for word instead of writing in their own words.
- 116 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.16.11. This can lead to high levels of similarity in student responses, making it difficult to differentiate genuine understanding from mere memorization.
18.16.12. In extreme cases, the widespread use of model answers can encourage academic dishonesty, as students may view exams as a mechanical exercise in reproduction rather than an opportunity for learning. 18.16.13. Puts Pressure on Institutions to Follow Rigid Marking Schemes: Some educational institutions may face pressure from students and parents to strictly adhere to model answers when grading exams.
18.16.14. This can reduce the flexibility of educators to reward unique or innovative answers.
- 117 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.16.15. Over time, this can weaken the education system by creating an environment where students are discouraged from thinking critically or developing their own ideas. 18.17. While key answers and model solutions provide many benefits, they also come with significant drawbacks. The biggest concerns include encouraging rote learning, discouraging creativity, limiting assessment flexibility, and reducing the overall quality of education. For an effective education system, it is essential to strike a balance--using model answers as guidance rather than absolute solutions.
18.18. To mitigate these disadvantages, educators should:
18.18.1. Encourage conceptual understanding alongside model answers.
- 118 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 18.18.2. Promote diverse ways of answering questions rather than enforcing a rigid structure.
18.18.3. Use model answers as learning tools, not just memorization aids.
18.18.4. Allow flexibility in grading to appreciate different student perspectives. 18.19. By addressing these concerns, the education system can ensure that model answers serve as an aid to learning rather than a hindrance to intellectual growth.
18.20. It is high time that the above are considered by the Academic Council in the proper perspective and action taken, rather than to disown or abdicate responsibility on account of administrative difficulties. 18.21. The manner in which cases have been coming up before this Court, if the numbers are tabulated, it would be clear to the University that thousands of petitions are coming up as
- 119 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 regards the discrepancy in the valuation on account of which, a student has been declared failed.
18.22. It is not only the number of litigations that has to be seen, but the number of lives which are dependent on such evaluation too, more particularly students in the younger age group whose confidence could be adversely affected if they are declared failed on account of improper evaluation. The impact of this on the psyche and the future of the student, on the family of the student, the society as a whole, as also on the college and the University need not be more emphasized. The reasoning of the Academic Council would indicate that there are 30,000 subjects being taught and there are already 10 question papers for each subject which have been prepared that would mean that the University has no problem or difficulty in preparing 30,000 question papers, but has
- 120 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 expressed only difficulty as regards preparing corresponding model answers or key answers. The Academic Council would have to reconsider its decision on this aspect. The very same person, who is setting the question papers would be the best person to prepare the key answers or model answers. Thus, while preparing the question paper, the model answers or key answers could also be prepared by the very same person, who has set/drafted the question paper. This would not cause any administrative strain on the University, but would go a long way in catering to the difficulties faced by the students, while doing so the above aspects pointed out could be considered apart from those that may be indicated as guidelines by the Academic Council approved by the Syndicate.. 18.23. The approach of the Academic Council apparently has been to find fault with and or
- 121 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 find difficulties in preparing the model answers and key answers. The Academic Council ought to have actually looked into how to solve the problems of the students, the colleges and the University, thus bringing a stop to these kinds of litigations which are a pain for everyone. No student wants to come to court to agitate their grievances. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Academic Council would be well advised to reconsider the decision and appoint an external agency to look into this aspect and work towards providing model answers and key answers by working out a methodology as to how it can be provided rather than to state the difficulties of providing it. This being the need of the day, I am sure the Academic Council and the Syndicate would take this in the right perspective and implement a proper system.
- 122 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024
19. Answer to Point No. (vii): What Order?
19.1. In view of my findings to all of the above points, I do not find any discrepancy in the ordinance issued for governing the evaluation process of the examinations for Post Graduate including Diploma and Super Speciality courses, nor is there any manifest arbitrariness in the ordinance issuing process. 19.2. As regards the manner of evaluation, I do not find any discrepancy in evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner, however I find the need for training the evaluators before giving them the work of evaluation, hence the University is directed to carry out necessary training in that regard.
19.3. In so far as providing key answers/model answers, the Syndicate and Academic Council are directed to reconsider their earlier decision in terms of the observations made hereinabove.
- 123 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430 WP No. 16960 of 2024 19.4. There being no grounds made out the above petition stands dismissed in terms of the above directions.
19.5. Though the matter is dismissed, relist on 24.04.2025 for reporting compliance with the above directions.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK/GAB/CKK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1