Karnataka High Court
Dr Yogitha M P M vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48514
WP No. 33176 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.33176 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR YOGITHA M.P.M.
D/O M.P.M. SHANMUKHAIAH
AGE: 28 YEARS
NO.12/G 4TH CROSS,
BEHIND GANGA SAWMILLS
HONALI - 577 127.
DAVANGERE DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DR.YOGITHA M.P.M. (PARTY-IN-PERSON) )
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
Digitally signed 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA
by CHANDANA BENGALURU - 560 041.
BM ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court of (BY SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 FO THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT IN NO.RGUHSB/LEG/WP/249/2025 DATED 10.10.2025
VIDE ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48514
WP No. 33176 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a) A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Endorsement in No.RGUHSB/LEG/WP/249/2025 dated 10.10.2025 vide Annexure-'N' issued by the Respondent University;
b) A writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction, directing the Respondent University to round off Theory Paper-I at 40.12 to 41, Theory Paper-II at 50.25 to 51 and Theory Paper - IV at 52.75 to 53 in the examination of the discipline in MD Ayurveda Samhita & Siddhant [RS3] conducted on March 2025 and further pleased to directed to round off the total average marks to 200 instead of 196 out of 400 and declare the result of the petitioner as " Pass" ;
c) A writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondent University to consequent to declaring the result of the petitioner as pass, to issue fresh marked card;
d) Grant such other writs or orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner having joined a Government Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, Mysore, for Post Graduate (MD) -3- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR course (RS3) for the academic year 2021-22, appeared for final year MD Ayurveda (Samhita & Siddhanta) Examination held during 04.03.2025 and 12.03.2025. In the said examinations, the petitioner obtained / secured the following marks in the Theory papers as hereunder:-
Theory Paper -1 40.12 - rounded off to 40
Theory Paper -2 50.25 - rounded off to 50
Theory Paper-3 51.00 - not rounded off
Theory Paper-4 52.75 - rounded off to 53
TOTAL - 194
The petitioner is entitled to 5 (five) grace marks, despite which, the total marks obtained by the petitioner would come to 199 (194 + 5) which still be short of the minimum passing marks of 200 (50%) out of the total marks, which are 400. Under these circumstances, the respondent declared the results of the petitioner on 03.04.2025 as having failed.
3. The petitioner having submitted a representation dated 11.07.2025 to the respondent, who did not consider the same and petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.25930/2025 which was disposed of vide final order dated 22.09.2025 directing the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders as hereunder:-
"The petitioner who is a student of final year MD Ayurveda, is before this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent - University to round off the theory paper-I marks from 40.12 to 41, Theory Paper-II marks from 50.25 to 51 and Theory Paper - IV from 52.25 to 53 in the examinations that were held during March 2025. The petitioner is also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent - University to consider the representation given by the petitioner at Annexure - G dated 11.07.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-University, however, brought to the notice of this Court a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences vs. Dr. K. Sree Laxmi and another and connected matters in Writ Appeal No.448/2025 which was rendered on 26.06.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the benefit given by this Court in the case of Dr. Guruprasad vs. Rajiv Gandhi University in W.P. No.11348/2020 was on the basis of the circumstances prevailing then i.e., COVID - 19. It was further held that, stipulation 5 states that there is no grace marks permitted in PG examination either for Theory or for Practical. It was held that the relief which has been granted by the learned single Judge is to round off the percentage to 50 percent, which in effect means that the same shall have the effect of granting grace marks for the candidates to reach 50 percent which is impermissible. Such direction would -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR amount to reading into the regulations what is not provided for and it would amount to re-writing the regulations by the Court, which is clearly impermissible in law.
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, in her representation at Annexure- G has stated that the petitioner is diagnosed with dysgraphia and in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission in SLP (Civil) 1882/2021 and having regard to the National Education Policy, 2020, for accessibility and inclusive principles in higher education, the representation has to be considered.
4. Having regard to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent-University to consider the representation at Annexure-G given by the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly."
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner and refused to declare her as having passed and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. Heard Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae, since the petitioner appeared in-person and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR learned counsel for the respondent - RGUHS and perused the material on record.
6. The respondent has filed statement of objections to the petition interalia contending that as per the RGUHS Regulations, in particular, Regulation No.3 of Revised Ordinance Governing Valuation of Theory answer script of Post Graduate Ayurveda course for examinations conducted on or after March, 2023, all answers scripts of Final year PG students would be evaluated by 4 valuators, which is to be rounded off to the nearest value for the purpose of computation of the results. It is contended that the petitioner having obtained 40.12 in Theory Paper-1, the same was rounded off to 40 marks, while 50.25 marks obtained in Theory Paper-2 was rounded off to 50 marks, both of which, were the nearest value / integer and 52.75 marks for Theory paper - 4 was already rounded off by the respondents to its nearest value / integer by granting 53 marks and the petitioner having obtained 51 marks in Theory paper-3, the total marks obtained by her was only 194 and even after adding 5 (five) grace marks, the same would come to only 199 marks, which was less than 200 marks (50%), out of the total 400 marks and as such, the respondent was fully -7- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR justified in declaring that the petitioner had failed in the examination by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.
7. The question as to whether rounding off marks to the nearest integer / value would involve reduction in marks already obtained by a student came up for consideration before the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of RGUHS vs. Dr.B.Nagadivya & Anr.- R.P.No.384/2021 in W.P.No.17479/2021 Dated 08.03.2022, whereby this Court rejected the review petition by coming to the conclusion that positive rounding off is required to be done rather / instead of negative rounding off to the nearest value / integer, since the said negative rounding off would tantamount to reducing the marks already undisputedly obtained by a student, which is impermissible in law by holding as under:-
"This review petition is in respect of a decision of this Court in W.P.No.17479/2021 dated 30.09.2021. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, which was the respondent in the writ petition, is before this Court seeking review of the said order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner- University submits that the basis for the decision of this Court is two earlier decisions in the case of DR.M.D.GOLAP HUSSAIN -8- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES IN W.P.NO.10365/2020 and SRI NEELESH MEHTA VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES IN W.P.NO.818/2021. Learned counsel would further submit that the other decision in the case of DR.GURUPRASAD VS. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, IN W.P.NO.11348/2020 and THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE VS. G.HEMALATHA AND OTHERS, - (2012) 8 SCC 568 was also noticed. Further, it is submitted that the earlier decisions which were noticed by this Court have been rendered on the premise that the petitioners before the Court were short of one mark and therefore those cases were decided in favour of the petitioner students while directing the University to round off the marks from 199 to 200. On the other hand, in the present case the petitioner had obtained 198 marks and therefore the benefit granted to the students in the case noticed by this Court could not have been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of record and is required to be considered by this Court in this review petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- University draws the attention of this Court to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of ANISHA.S.M VS. NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL & ORS., IN W.P.NO.5463/2021 to contend that in terms of clause 5 (1)(b) contained in the Ordinance governing 'Post Graduate including diploma and super specialty students' in terms of the notification dated 29.03.2019, provision is made for rounding off the marks -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR while averaging the best of four total marks awarded by the evaluators from amongst the five evaluators and the same could be rounded off to the nearest value and there is no further scope for rounding off while converting the marks obtained from 120 marks to 100%. However, it is clarified that the decision in the case of Anisha.S.M, was in respect of Under Graduate course and while in the present case the issue is regarding post graduation students. Nevertheless, it is submitted that provisions are similar.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 students, submits that there is no error apparent on the face of record. On the other hand, it is clear even from the memorandum of review petition and the comparitive table prepared by the respondent- University, that in paper No.2 the total marks awarded by the 5 evaluators adds up to 201. Further while averaging the same to 100%, it is shown as 50.25%. Learned counsel for the respondent student submits that there cannot be any provision that could take away the marks legitimately acquired by the students. The learned counsel submits that it is evident while averaging the total marks of 201 to 100%, it is shown as 50.25%. The legitimately acquired marks, even as per the average i.e., 0.25, cannot be taken away by interpreting the Ordinance in such a manner that it would cause disadvantage of the student. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel that there is an error in the calculation made by the respondent- University. In paper No.2, therefore, what is required to be awarded to the respondent student is 51% and not 50% as contended in the review petition. If that is done, the student
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR gets 199 marks and not 198 marks as contended by the University. Further, in the light of the two decisions in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta, where the benefit of one mark was granted to the students who were before this Court is legitimately granted to the respondent student also and therefore learned counsel submits that there is no merit in the review petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel and perused the review petition papers.
6. The error, which according to the petitioner- University, which is apparent on the face of the record is that in the present case the student had secured 198 marks out of 400 and therefore the benefit that was granted to the students in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta and such other petitions being on the ground that those students were short of one mark, therefore the student in this writ petition cannot be given the same benefit as was done to those writ petitions. After consideration of the submissions at the Bar, this Court finds that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent student that while considering the circular/notification dated 29.03.2019 in the matter of rounding off the marks, the provisions cannot be interpreted in such a manner that it would be to the disadvantage of the student. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent- student. Technically speaking, going by the word of the notification, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-University that the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR percentage has to be rounded off to the nearest value can be interpreted as rounding off 50.25% to 50% since 50 is nearer than 51. However the golden rule of interpretation is that interpretation of a provision should be made in such a manner, especially in such cases, keeping in view the objective of the beneficial legislation. The marks legitimately obtained by a student cannot be taken away. Out of 400 marks, the respondent- student has obtained 201. While reducing the total marks obtained for 400 to 100%, the arithmetical value would be 50.25%. But this Court is one with the student when it is contended that the 0.25% is also the marks legitimately obtained by the student and at any rate same cannot be taken away. Therefore, although it is provided in the notification that while arriving at an average and rounding off the same, the marks shall be rounded of to the nearest value, however, 0.25% cannot be reduced to the value which is lesser. This Court is of the considered opinion that while interpreting the said provision due regard has to be given to the intention of the legislature. It cannot be denied that the notification was issued for the benefit of the students. Therefore, while interpreting the said provision, due regard should be given to the objective and therefore the view favouring the student should be leaned towards. Going by the said opinion, 50.25% in paper No.2 could not have been reduced to 50%. Consequently, in paper No.2, the petitioner has to be rightly given 51%. If that is given, the total average mark obtained by the respondent-student is 199 marks and not 198. Consequently, when the respondent
- student has also obtained 199 marks, then she is entitled
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR for the benefit as was given to the other students in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta.
7. For the reasons stated above, this court proceeds to pas the following:
ORDER The review petition is dismissed."
8. Similarly, in the case of Dr.Haroon Adoni vs. RGUHS - W.P.No.4448/2023 dated 11.04.2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
"Heard learned counsel Smt.Sumana Baliga.M., appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned counsel Sri Girish Kumar R., appearing for respondent - University.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after completing his graduation in MBBS he took admission to Post Graduate Degree in the discipline of MD Pathology in ESISC Medical College & PGIMSR, Bangalore for 2019- 2022 batch. He took regular PG examination in May 2022 and also in November 2022 the supplementary examination. He had done extremely well in the said examination and he was confident of completing the same with good marks. During December 2022 the results were announced in the official website of the respondent - University. To his shock and surprise he failed by three marks and he was awarded 197 marks out of 400 marks for theory papers. In view of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner having secured 197/400 marks the average was 49.25 and he was declared as failed.
3. Immediately thereafter petitioner applied for digital evaluation and he was shocked on perusal of marks allotted to him by the individual evaluator. The evaluation was erratic and marks awarded were not consistent. He had secured 51, 48, 52 and 49 marks respectively for the four papers out of total 100 marks each.
4. Petitioner immediately rushed to the respondent - University and requested them to look into the matter and to extend the benefits of rounding off the marks, which was given to in the previous batch in compliance of the direction from this Court in WP No.11348/2020 and other similar writ petitions, wherein similarly situated students who have obtained marks in an average of 49.25% were rounded off to 50% as per the Ordinance and to declare him as PASS. The respondent - University refused to extend the same to the petitioner and rejected the same.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the evaluation of the PG course is governed by the 'Ordinance governing Post Graduation Including Diploma and super Specialty Valuation' dated 29.03.2019. According to 4(b) of the said Ordinance for passing the examination, the student should secure 50% in the theory examination in aggregate and 50% in the practical plus viva examinations.
6. Petitioner contends that similarly placed students, who had secured average of 49.75%, approached this Court challenging the action of the respondent - University in WP
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR No.11348/2020, wherein a direction was issued, which reads as follows:
".. .. .. Since petitioner has secured 49.75% marks, the said figure has to be rounded off to the next whole and that will be 50%.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds, the petitioner's marks in theory examination at 49.75% stands rounded off to the next whole, ie, 50% and consequently the respondent - University shall declare him 'passed' and issue the necessary result sheet accordingly. Time for compliance is four weeks."
7. Based on the aforesaid order / direction issued in WP No.11348/2020, the respondent - University placed the matter before the Syndicate meeting, which was held on 12.11.2020 and the Syndicate had discussed the aspect of rounding off the marks in detail and it was decided by the Syndicate that marks that is awarded should benefit the students and opined by the Members of the Syndicate to exercise its option prospectively and accordingly students similarly placed should get benefit of the same.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that due to COVID-19 pandemic situation across the globe, which was largely affected in India, the academic study of the petitioner was disturbed and college could not conduct regular classes during first wave from April 2020 till December 2020. Apart from this, it is the case of the petitioner that the PG students were put on regular duty for a continuous period of 7 days and gave them a break of 7 days and so on. In view of COVID-19 emergencies and there was limited scope for exposure they were also put to attend other type of case.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to placing the order passed by this Court before the Syndicate Meeting held on 12.11.2020, the Syndicate came to a conclusion to round off the marks at evaluator level, round of marks after taking average of 4+1 valuations and rounding off the marks after taking total average of marks with prospective effect to benefit the students.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that since he secured 197 marks out of 400 marks aggregate theory marks as 49.25%, the respondent rounded off his marks from 49.25% to the nearest value which is 49% and doing so, the respondent deducted one mark. He further contends that this action of the respondent - University is illegal and against settled principles of law.
11. Petitioner contends that in view of the inaction on the part of the respondent - University, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of present writ petition for non-application of mind by the respondent - University for not applying the methodology as per the Ordinance, directions of this Court and also the decision of the Syndicate and thereby declared the petitioner as failed.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - University vehemently contends that there is no wrong in the decision and action taken by the respondent - University in awarding the marks as obtained by the petitioner. He further contends that as pleaded by the petitioner himself in para-5 of the writ petition which clearly evidences that the petitioner has secured marks of 51.25 in paper-I rounded of to average
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR of 51 marks, 45.25 in paper-II rounded of to average of 45 marks, 51.5 in paper-III rounded of to average of 52 marks and 49 in paper-IV rounded of to average of 49 marks. He further contends that in view of the above the respondent - University has rounded of the marks obtained by the petitioner to the nearest value and therefore, it cannot be considered as illegal or arbitrary on their part.
13. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent - University.
14. It is seen in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having secured average 51.25 marks in Paper-I to be rounded off to 52 and in Paper-II petitioner secured 45.25 marks which requires to be rounded off to 46 for consideration of the average marks of the petitioner.
15. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of DR. GURUPRASAD vs RAJIV GNADHI UNIVERISITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, in W.P. No.11348/2020 DD 20.10.2020, wherein this Court has rounded of the marks taking into consideration of Paragraph 5(I)(b) of the Subject Ordinance, which clearly explains that 'the average of the best four total marks for the paper awarded by five evaluators, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for final computation of the results.'
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court in Review Petition No.384 of 2021
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR arising out of W.P. No.17479 of 2021, DD 08.03.2022, wherein under similar circumstances, held as follows:
" Technically speaking, going by the word of the notification, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-University that the percentage has to be rounded off to the nearest value can be interpreted as rounding off 50.25% to 50% since 50 is nearer than 51. However the golden rule of interpretation is that interpretation of a provision should be made in such a manner, especially in such cases, keeping in view the objective of the beneficial legislation. The marks legitimately obtained by a student cannot be taken away. Out of 400 marks, the respondent- student has obtained 201. While reducing the total marks obtained for 400 to 100%, the arithmetical value would be 50.25%. But this Court is one with the student when it is contended that the 0.25% is also the marks legitimately obtained by the student and at any rate same cannot be taken away. Therefore, although it is provided in the notification that while arriving at an average and rounding off the same, the marks shall be rounded of to the nearest value, however, 0.25% cannot be reduced to the value which is lesser. This Court is of the considered opinion that while interpreting the said provision due regard has to be given to the intention of the legislature. It cannot be denied that the notification was issued for the benefit of the students. Therefore, while interpreting the said provision, due regard should be given to the objective and therefore the view favouring the student should be leaned towards. Going by the said opinion, 50.25% in paper No.2 could not have been reduced to 50%.
Consequently, in paper No.2, the petitioner has to be rightly given 51%. If that is given, the total average mark obtained by the respondent-student is 199 marks and not 198. Consequently, when the respondent - student has also obtained 199 marks, then she is entitled for the benefit as was given to the other students in the case of Dr.Golap Hussain and Sri Neelesh Mehta".
17. Under these circumstances, the two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner are clearly applicable to the case on hand. The marks obtained by the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner in Paper-I at 51.25 and Paper-II at 45.25 requires to be rounded off to 52 and 46 respectively. Thereby the total average marks would be 199 out of 400 instead of 197, then petitioner would get an average marks of 49.75%, which requires to be rounded off to 50%, since the value as held by this Court in Review Petition, supra, the golden rule of interpretation to be adopted keeping in view the object of the beneficial Legislation always in favour of the students.
18. In view of the above, the writ petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed.;
(2) The writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent - University to round off the marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper-I at 51.25% to 52% and Paper-II at 45.25% to 46% in the examination of the discipline of MD Pathology (RS-3) conducted November 2022 by them. Further, to round off the total average marks to 199 instead of 197 out of 400 secured by the petitioner, then in total the average marks of 49.75% to 50%.;
(3) The respondent - University is directed to issue fresh marks card as stated above to the petitioner forthwith.;
(4) The respondent - University shall complete the aforesaid process within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, a provision for rounding off the marks obtained by the students in PG examinations conducted by RGUHS would entail positive rounding off to the nearest higher integer/value and not negative rounding off to a lesser / lower value, since the same would tantamount to reducing and taking away the marks already obtained by the petitioner, thereby depriving her of the legitimate marks that had undisputedly been obtained / secured by her. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the petitioner having obtained 40.12 marks in Theory Paper-1 and 50.25 in Theory Paper-2, the said marks were to be rounded off positively to their nearest higher integer / value i.e., to 41 marks in Theory Paper-1 and 51 marks in Theory Paper- 2; the petitioner having already obtained 51 marks in Theory paper
- 3 and 53 marks in Theory paper-4, the aggregate of the total marks obtained / secured by the petitioner would come to 196 marks and by adding 4 (four) marks to the same out of the total permissible grace marks of 5 (five), the total marks obtained by the petitioner would come to 200 which would constitute 50% of the total marks of 400, thereby leading to the unmistakable conclusion that the petitioner would be entitled to be declared as 'pass' instead
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR of 'fail' as wrongly declared by the respondent - RGUHS and consequently, the impugned Endorsement vide Annexure-N dated 10.10.2025 deserves to be quashed as hereunder:
Theory Paper -1 40.12 - rounded off to 41
Theory Paper -2 50.25 - rounded off to 51
Theory Paper-3 51.00 - not rounded off
Theory Paper-4 52.75 - already rounded off
by RGUHS to 53
TOTAL - 196
Add grace marks - 4
TOTAL - 200 (PASS)
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure - N dated
10.10.2025 issued by the respondent - University is hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent - RGUHS is directed to positively round off Theory paper - 1 from 40.12 marks to 41 marks, Theory Paper
- 2 from 50.25 marks to 51 marks in the examination of the Discipline in MD Ayurveda Samhita & Siddhant (RS3) conducted in
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48514 WP No. 33176 of 2025 HC-KAR March 2025 and grant / add 4 (four) grace marks in favour of the petitioner, thereby granting total marks of 200 (50%) out of 400 and declare the result of the petitioner as "Pass" instead of 'Fail' and issue fresh marks card in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) The valuable assistance rendered by Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this matter is placed on record.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17