ORDER :

R. Devdas, J.

The problem of valuation and revaluation seems to be raising its ugly head again and again, inspite of several decisions. The petitioners in these writ petitions are medical students seeking revaluation of their answer papers. Prayers are also made to declare the "Amendment to Ordinance Governing Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS-3 Scheme)" (hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance 13.10.2020', for short) notified on 13.10.2020 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since common questions arise for decision making, with the consent of learned Counsels on both the sides, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Lakshminarayana, appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners submitted that the Ordinance 13.10.2020 is required to be quashed as illegal and without authority of law, since it has not been notified in the Gazette. It is submitted that though there is no specific prescription of notifying the Ordinance in the Gazette, the general rule requiring notification of Ordinances, legislations, amendments, etc., should be made applicable to Ordinances issued by the respondent Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-University', for short). It is further submitted that the previous Ordinance, 2019 which was holding the field having been struck down by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019 on 10.08.2020, but the petitioners having been admitted to the MBBS Courses during the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, any new Ordinance brought into operation subsequent to the admissions, cannot be held operational as against the said students. It is submitted that such of the students who were admitted prior to the new Ordinance-2020, will be governed by Ordinance-2019 or any other Ordinance holding the field prior to the Ordinance-2019. It was submitted that the impugned Ordinance is not applicable to the petitioners as the same was issued after the schedule of exams were announced. It was submitted that the stakeholders were not consulted and objections were not called for.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., appearing for some of the petitioners submits that during the year 2008, the respondent University had constituted an Examination Reforms Committee consisting of experts drawn from all faculties to discuss the reforms in the existing examination system and consequently, in terms of the recommendations made by the reforms committee a notification was issued, revising the Ordinance pertaining to 3rd evaluation in UG Courses and 5th evaluation in PG Courses and provision of challenge valuation was provided for. As per the revised notification dated 30.08.2008, all the UG examinations were required to be valued by two different examiners independently. Provision was made for challenge valuation for the aggrieved students. The average marks of the best of two evaluations, in respect of UG students, was provided for. However, by notification dated 22.03.2010, the system of challenge evaluation was abolished and revaluation in case of deviation in general valuation was introduced. As per the said notification, the Ordinance governing revaluation came into effect from 01.04.2010, where provision was made for general valuation by two valuators in the case of UG courses and four valuators for the PG courses. Revaluation was provided for by the 3rd examiner with respect to UG and 5th examiner with respect to PG courses. It provided that wherever the deviation between any two valuations in the general valuation is 15% or more, revaluation shall be made. The Ordinance was made applicable only to Theory papers and not viva/clinical/practical examinations, in respect of UG courses.

4. By a further notification dated 15.06.2012, a new Ordinance was brought into effect from 15.06.2012. The change that was brought about in the said Ordi