JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.

(Oral) The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to revaluate the theory papers of Masters of Dental Surgery (Prosthodontics) held in the month of May/June 2020 and for revising the result of the petitioner.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had passed his Bachelor in Dental Surgery (BDS) in the year 2009 from Baba Farid University of Health Sciences by obtaining 60% marks and was thereafter, appointed as Medical Officer (Dental) on 09.06.2011 and had then applied for MDS (Prosthodontics & Crown & Bridge) in the respondent University in the year 2016 and was, on the basis of merit, admitted in MDS (Prosthodontics And Crown & Bridge) in the Session 2016. It is further submitted that although, the petitioner had completed the MDS course but respondent Nos.4 and 5, who were the Associate Professors in the Department of MDS (Prosthodontics And Crown & Bridge), had personal grudge against the petitioner and had written letters to the Principal against the petitioner. It is contended that as per the "Dental Council of India Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007" which deals with the evaluation of answer books, all the answer books are required to be evalued by four Examiners, two of which are supposed to be Internal Examiners and two are External Examiners and the average of the marks given by the said Examiners, are to be computed. In order to pass the university examinations, a candidate is required to secure in both theory examination and practical examination which includes viva-voice, independently an aggregate of 50% of total marks allotted and the candidate securing less marks, is required to be declared as 'failed'. It is contended that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the Internal Examiners when the petitioner appeared in MDS Examinations in the month of May/June, 2019 and the marks given by the said respondent Nos.4 and 5 were far less than the marks which were given by the External Examiners in each of the four papers. It is further contended that the total marks awarded by the Internal Examiners, who were respondent Nos.4 and 5, was 263 out of 600 i.e., 43.83%, whereas the total marks awarded by the External Examiners was 375 out of 600 i.e., 62.5%. It is argued that the petitioner, at that stage, did not lay any challenge to the less marks awarded to him as he has respect for his teachers and thereafter, he re-appeared in the MDS Examinations held in the month of May/June, 2020 and even, in the said examinations, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the Internal Examiners of the petitioner and even in the said examinations, the said Internal Examiners i.e. respondent Nos.4 and 5 had given less marks in each of the four papers to the petitioner than those given by the External Examiners and the total of the marks given by respondent Nos.4 and 5 was 232 out of 600 (38.6%) as compared to grand total of 332.5 (55.4%) given by the External Examiners in the said papers. It is further argued that the Internal Examiners i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 5 had given less marks to the petitioner on account of their personal bias, for which, reference has been made to the letter (Annexure P-1) and reply given by the petitioner (Annexure P-2). It is also contended that several representations were given by the petitioner to the respondent authorities seeking revaluation of the papers but when no action was taken, then the present writ petition was filed.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the j