Karnataka High Court
Rohaan John Joseph vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6789
WP No. 1668 of 2025
C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1668 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 1672 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
IN WP No. 1668 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
PAVAN RIBU
S/O RIBU VARGHESE,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT: CHERACKAL HOUSE,
PERUMPILY POST, MULANTHURUTHY,
ERNAKULAM
KERALA - 682 314.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA JAYANAGAR, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE REGISTAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
JAYANAGAR, 4TH T BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET-14, SECTOR - 8
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6789
WP No. 1668 of 2025
C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025
DWARAKA PHASE-I
NEW DELHI - 110 077
REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESULT ANNOUNCED BY THE R2 IN SUBJECTS, HAVING QP
CODE 1021/ANATONY-II VIDE ANNXS-A AND B AND DIRECT
THE R1 AND 2 TO CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATION OF
THE FAILED SUBJECT OF THE PHASE-I MBBS (RS6)
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED DURING DECEMBER 2024
UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER STRICTLY IN TERMS OF
REGULATIONS 13 OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS 1997 AND
ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS AFRESH AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
AND FURTHER RELIES.
IN WP NO. 1672 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ROHAAN JOHN JOSEPH
S/O BYJU JOSEPH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/AT: SANTHIGRAH HOUSE,
56-1, KAKKANADULANE
KESAVADASAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM
KERALA - 695 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
JAYANAGAR, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6789
WP No. 1668 of 2025
C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
JAYANAGAR, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET -14, SECTOR - 8
DWARAKA PHASE-I
NEW DELHI - 110 077
REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESULT ANNOUNCED BY THE R-2 IN SUBJECTS, HAVING
QP CODE 1020/ANATOMY-I VIDE ANNX-A AND B WITH
RESPECT TO PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO
CONDUCT TWO ADDITIONAL VALUATION OF THE FAILED
SUBJECT OF THE PHASE-I MBBS (RS6) EXAMINATION
CONDUCTED DURING DECEMBER 2024 UNDERTAKEN BY
THE PETITIONER STRICTLY IN TERMS OF REGULATIONS 13
OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA. GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION REGULATIONS 1997 AND ANNOUNCE THE
RESULTS AFRESH AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT AS THIS HONBLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:6789
WP No. 1668 of 2025
C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in WP No.1668/2025 is seeking for the following reliefs "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the result announced by the 2nd respondent in subjects, having QP Code 1021/Anatomy-II vide Annexures-A and B.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct two additional valuation of the failed subject of the phase-I MBBS (RS6) examination conducted during December 2024 undertaken by the petitioner strictly in terms of Regulations 13 of the Medical Council of India. Graduate Medical Education Regulations 1997 and announce the results afresh and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner in WP No.1672/2025 is seeking for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the result announced by the 2nd respondent in subjects, having -5- NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 QP Code 1020/Anatomy-I vide Annexures-A and B with respect to petitioner.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct two additional valuation of the failed subject of the phase-I MBBS (RS6) examination conducted during December 2024 undertaken by the petitioner strictly in terms of Regulations 13 of the Medical Council of India. Graduate Medical Education Regulations 1997 and announce the results afresh and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
4. The petitioner joined the MBBS Course at Father Muller Medical College and appeared for examinations which were announced during December, 2023, i.e., part-I of Phase-I. The petitioner was declared failed in one paper i.e., Anatomy. It is submitted by the petitioner that the manner in which the valuation has been made is contrary to the decision passed in the case of Ms. -6- NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 Nireeksha .S Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others1 (Nireeksha) and in the case of Ms. Khushi Narayan and others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others2 (Khushi Narayan), wherein, respondents were directed to conduct evaluation in terms of Regulation 13 of the Medical Council of India. It is the contention of the petitioner that after taking a second additional valuation there being a difference of three marks between the two valuations, the respondent has announced the results declaring the petitioner has failed. It is submitted that evaluation of answer scripts made by the respondent is in total violation of the aforementioned decisions and since now by way of notification/Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, there is no revaluation provided and the petitioner is made to suffer and not permitted to attend the part-II of Phase-II of MBBS course and necessary directions be issued to the respondent-university to revaluate the answer scripts by 1 WP No.10244/2021 D.D. 01.07.2021 2 WP No.7682/2022 D.D. 19.04.2022 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 additional two evaluations and petitioners will get through the subjects.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the RGUHS submits that the ordinance dated 05.09.2021 was subject to adjudication in the case of V. Vamshi Krishna Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and another3 (V. Vamshi Krishna) wherein the validity of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 has been upheld and similarly in the case of Mr. Aneesh S.M. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others4 (Aneesh) followed by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abin Thomas Sebastian Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others5 (Abin Thomas). It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has upheld the validity of the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and also held that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, as the valuations carried out is in the domain of the experts bodies and Court cannot 3 WP No.11688/2023 D.D. 13.10.2023 4 W.P. No.13375/2023 D.D. 18.04.2024 5 WP 8912/2024 D.D. 19.09.2024 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 direct or embark inspection of answer scripts and the present petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court as stated supra.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The ordinance/notification governing valuations of all undergraduate Health Science Course theory and answer scripts was held in the minutes of 172nd Syndicate Meeting of the Committee of the academic council on 05.09.2022. The RGUHS has introduced the original valuation system for evaluating answer scripts of all examinations in health science subjects from the year May 2015 onwards and formulated an ordinance on 29.03.2019. Several notifications governing the system of evaluations were made in respect of the undergraduate examinations issued by the University from time to time and the procedure of the evaluation was subject matter by way of several writ petitions before this Court. The -9- NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 was quashed in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others6 (Neelesh Mehta) and ordered the University to conduct two more valuations to the failed candidates of June 2019 and October 2019 MBBS examinations. Further the Ordinance dated 01.02.2021 was subject matter in the case of Ms. Sahana Kalasagond and others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences7 (Sahana Kalasagond), wherein applying the provisions of Ordinance of 2012, held that wherever there is a difference of 15% or more between the marks awarded by two evaluations, the same was sent to the third valuator.
8. The ordinance was also subject matter in the case of Shivakumar Subedar Vs. The Vice Chancellor Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others8 (Shivakumar Subedar) wherein respondent-university was ordered to conduct one more 6 WP No.31335/2019 D.D. 10.08.2020 7 WP No.13626/2021 D.D. 07.10.2021 8 WP No.200862/2021 D.D. 21.04.2021
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 valuation quoting as the evaluation by the examiners as extracted are probably and demonstrably erratic.
9. The Ordinance promulgated by the RGUHS was subject to the orders of this Court and the Ordinance being quashed, the committee of the academic councils, Syndicate and board of studies promulgated the ordinance / notification in super session of all the ordinances / notification pertaining to answer scripts evaluation and the present ordinance evaluation system was promulgated by this ordinance dated 05.09.2022. The said ordinance was in challenge before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in V. Vamshi Krishna's case, this Court upheld the validity of the ordinance and while disposing of the writ petitions, this Court observed at paragraph Nos.26, 27 and 29 as under:
"26. Section 35(1) provides that Syndicate may from time to time make ordinances, amend or repeal. Section 35(3)(b) states that in making ordinance the Syndicate shall consult the academic council in relating to conduct or standard of examination or the Syndicate shall consult the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 academic council in relating to conduct or standard of examination or conditions of residence of students. In the instant case, where the university decided to introduce the digital valuation system for evaluating answer scripts of all examinations in the Health Science subjects from May 2016 onwards and promulgated ordinance dated 29.03.2019. In respect of under graduate examination, several notification governing the system of evaluation were issued by the University from time to time. The process of evaluation contending the previous notification were subject matter of several writ petitions. This Court ordered that as and when an ordinance is re-promulgated, it has to be discussed in the Committee of Academic Council and Syndicate. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the university has placed the matter for deliberation before the Committee of Academic Council Meetings held on 25.08.2022, 26.08.2022 and 29.08.2022. The Committee of Academic Council recommended to promulgate impugned ordinance in supersession of all the previous ordinances/notifications pertaining to the answer script evaluation. The same was placed before Minutes of 172nd Syndicate meeting held on 02.09.2022 and 05.09.2022. The Syndicate also was pleased to promulgate the impugned ordinance. The impugned ordinance
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 came into force with effect from the examination conducted on or after 01.09.2022. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of RGUHS and another Vs. Mr.Samarth SS and others in W.A.No.1208/2022 disposed of on 11.01.2023 held that the impugned ordinance is in accordance with Section 35 of RGUHS Act, 1994.
27. The legislature and the delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide the policies which should be pursued in relation to the matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal lacunas in its merits, in the sense if it's being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case. The Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994 makes it clear that a duty is cast on the Syndicate to formulate its ordinances, amend or repeal in consultation with the Academic Council in matter relating to conduct or standard of examination or condition of residence of students. It s perfectly within the competence of syndicate in consultation with the academic council, rather, it
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 was its plain duty to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to matters of examination. All these are undoubtfully matters which have an intimate nexus with the objects and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore within the ambit of the power to make ordinance amend or repeal contended by section 35 of the Act, unless it can be said that ordinance is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable or partial. The said ordinance was promulgated by the prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by the professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day today working institutions and the department controlling them. It would be wholly wrong on the part of the Court to make a pandentic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and gross route problems involved in the working of system and unmindful of consequences which would eminate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one way to be propounded . It is equally important, Court should avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or byelaw which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. The procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025
29. The petitioners are the students who do not have any right to dictate the university with regard to the process of revaluation as the same is the policy decision to be made by the university and the same cannot be done on the whims and fancies of the students. The university is conferred by statute in rule making power. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State board of Secondary and Higher Secondary education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 held that, it is the university, the state/central authority which prescribes the methodology and the process of evaluation it should be left to the academicians to do their jobs and the Court should reframe in treading to their territory of policy decision. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parents association, RGUHS Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka in W.P.Nos.2905 and 453/2000 disposed on 19.12.2003 observed that the procedure to be adopted for evaluating the answer scripts is a matter of academic policy of the university and that when the ordinance is made by the Syndicate of the university consisting of academicians and experts in the field of education, it is impermissible for the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 Court to interfere with such a policy in the arbitrariness. "
10. Similar writ petitions were also again filed seeking to quash the ordinance dated 05.09.2022 by the students of RS4 batch placing several contentions in the case of Anneesh stated supra. This Court dismissed the writ petition considering the decision of V. Vamshi Krishna's case passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court and passed the following order:
"29. In W.P.no.11688/2023 (V.Vamshi Krishna v. RGUHS and Anr., disposed of on 13.10.2023), learned Single Judge of this Court examined specific challenge against CAP-2022, by students who had appeared in May, 2022 MBBS Examinations and prayer for providing challenge valuation in case of difference of marks awarded between two evaluators was more than 15%. Invalidity of CAP-2022 on ground of non-effective consultation was also considered, but writ petitions were dismissed by upholding validity of CAP-2022.
30. Hence, decision in V.Vamshi Krishna's case (supra) would squarely cover questions (ii) and (iii). Indeed, earlier decision in Dr.Prashant Mannur's case (supra) was not brought to notice
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 of Court in Vamshi Krishna's case (supra), but validity of CAP-2022 was upheld on ground that scope of judicial review in academic matters would be extremely limited, referring to series of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Division Bench of this Court in New Krishna Bhavan, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3 v. Commercial Tax Officer, No. IV Circle (Addl.) Bangalore, reported in 1959 SCC OnLine Kar. 130, held in case of conflict between decisions of equal bench strength, later decision would prevail. In view of above discussion, questions (i) to (iii) are answered in negative. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed."
11. The validity of the ordinance has been upheld by this Court in the case of V. Vamshi Krishna and Aneesh, similarly, similar contention was again brought down before the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abin Thomas stated supra. The Court considered that the ordinance passed by the RGUHS dated 05.09.2022 has already been held valid and upheld, the question of reconsidering or passing the direction relating to the revaluation by a method contrary to that provided under the Ordinance would not arise. The ordinance dated
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 05.09.2022 prescribes the definition of valuation, which reads as under:
"3. DEFINITIONS:
General valuation-Means evaluation conducted by the first eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system. Re-evaluation- Means evaluation conducted by the first eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system.
4. PROCEDURE FOR VALUATION:
All answer scripts of all undergraduate health sciences courses of RGUHS be subjected to general evaluation by the first eligible examiner and re- evaluation by the second eligible examiner of the respective faculties through the digital valuation system before the computation of results.
5. PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTATION OF RESULTS:
The highest of the total marks awarded by either of the two evaluators i.e., best total marks awarded by any of the two evaluators for the paper shall be considered for computation of the results. If any decimals occurring during individual evaluator total marks awarded by the examiner shall be rounded
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 off to the next higher value for the purpose of computation of results.
The marks awarded and the results so declared shall be final and under any circumstances further valuation shall not be entertained and should be made applicable prospectively."
12. The procedure for computation of results is that the highest marks of the total marks awarded by either of two valuators that is best of total marks awarded by any of the two valuators for the paper shall be considered for the computation of the results. The procedure prescribed under the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022 and the valuation being done in the prescribed manner, there is no extraordinary circumstances justifying the passing of direction contrary to the procedure followed under the Ordinance dated 05.09.2022, the process of evaluation is the policy decision to be made by the University in the case of V. Vamshi Krishna and Aneesh's case, the same being upheld by this Court, reconsidering the Ordinance or consideration afresh would not arise. The prayer sought in
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6789 WP No. 1668 of 2025 C/W WP No. 1672 of 2025 these petitions would not arise as the valuation by the two evaluators as per the procedure prescribed as per Clause 5 of the Ordinance was within the domain of the experts bodies and the highest marks having been considered by the university for computation of the results, there being no error made out by the petitioner and hence, the following:
ORDER Writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
_______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71