The main legal point established is that the Academic Council's decision on valuation procedure should be followed by the respondent-University for the MBBS RS4 examination.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are pursuing MBBS Course for the academic year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 under Revised Scheme No.4 (RS4) at various medical colleges affiliated to respondent-Universty.

2. The petitioners had taken examination conducted by the respondent-University in May, 2022 and being aggrieved by non- implementation of the Resolution/decision of the Academic Council of the respondent-University dtd. 20/4/2022 regarding the procedure to be adopted for valuation of the MBBS Theory answer-scripts, have approached this Court, seeking writ of mandamus to respondent-University to re-compute the results of the failed subjects of the MBBS (RS4) examination of May, 2022, by considering the highest marks of two examiners for the purpose of computation of the results in terms of the decision of the Academic Council dtd. 20/4/2022 (Annexure-E) to the writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Medical Council of India/National Medical Commission has amended the Regulations pertaining to the MBBS Course for the Academic year 2019-2020 onwards by Notification dtd. 4/11/2019. In furtherance of the same, respondent-University had notified the MBBS Degree course having curriculum for Phase-I and Phase-II subjects and same was introduced for MBBS RS4 Examination. Under RS4 scheme, the scheme of examination, question paper pattern, model question papers, etc. have been modified and the petitioners are governed under the New MBBS RS4 scheme and as such, the respondent-University promulgated the "Ordinance Government Central Assessment Program" (CAP) dtd. 1/2/2021 for theory assessment of MBBS Course, in terms of Sec. 35 of the Karnataka Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "Act') The Ordinance dtd. 1/2/2021 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.13626 of 2021 and connected petitions (MS. SAHANA KALASAGOND AND OTHERS v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES) and this Court, by Order dtd. 7/10/2021 set aside the ordinance dtd. 1/2/2021 and directed the respondent-University to rectify the procedural irregularity in not securing the permission of the Academy Council before passing the Ordinance. It is the case of the petitioners that, upon setting aside the Ordinance dtd. 1/2/2021 by this Court, thereafter, the issue was deliberated on 20/4/2022 by the Academic Council with regard to procedure to be adopted for the purpose of evaluation and arrived at a conclusion that insofar as the examination conducted from 1/5/2022, only the highest of the marks awarded by the examiners would be considered for computation of results. Minutes of the meeting dtd. 20/4/2022 is produced at Annexure-E. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the petitioners had appeared in the MBBS RS4 examination of May 2022 conducted by the respondent- University and most of the students in the respondent- University, including the petitioners herein, failed in theory subjects. The respondent-University had adopted the procedure that the marks obtained in Paper-I and II are calculated together and those who have secured 50% aggregate, have been declared 'Passed'. Five grace marks was also added to the respective subjects. Thereafter, the petitioners sought for copies of the answer-scripts from the respondent-University and came to know that the petitioners had failed in the examination after additional valuations being conducted. The difference between the highest and lowest marks awarded after two valuations is =15% between the examiners and therefore, it is case of the petitioners that the respondent-University has not adopted the procedure as directed by the Academic Council by calculating the highest of the two valuation marks awarded by the examiners. Hence, petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petitions.

4. On service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed statement of objection contending that pursuant