CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [University] and National Medical Commission [NMC], have preferred these appeals impugning the separate orders passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions, W.P.Nos.34041/2025, 34928/2025, 34487/2025 and 34621/2025 decided on which were preferred by the students of the University seeking re-evaluation of their answer scripts of the examination undertaken by them in subjects where they had failed to get the minimum marks for passing the said examination.

2. The criteria for passing the examination are to secure more than 200 marks out of 400 in the theory examination, which comprises four papers of 100 marks each, and a minimum of 40 marks in each of the four papers. The writ petitioners secured an

01.12.2025

AND 5 OTHERS aggregate of 200 or more marks, but failed to secure the minimum 40 marks in all papers. Thus, they were declared to have failed the examinations. In the aforesaid circumstances, they filed the said writ petitions, essentially, seeking re-evaluation of their answer scripts.

3. Under Regulation 8.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 [The Regulations], each answer script was evaluated by two evaluators, and the average of the marks awarded by the two evaluators was accepted as the final result.

4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the University to refer the answer scripts of the subjects in question to a third evaluator with a further direction to take the average of the best of the two total marks awarded by the three evaluators, rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number) for the purpose of final computation of the results.

5. At the outset, it is material to note that there was no demonstrable error in the evaluation of the answer scripts. The only ground on which the writ petitions were allowed was that the aggregate marks secured by the writ petitioners were 200 or more, which was sufficient for them to pass the examination. However, AND 5 OTHERS they had been declared failed for failing to obtain the minimum threshold of 40 marks in one of the papers. The Court reasoned that the said fact warranted reference of the answer scripts to a third evaluator to "do substantial justice and on the grounds of equity".

6. The material facts regarding the marks secured by students in each of the writ petitions differ, and so do the results. The examinations and the course being undertaken by them vary; however, the question involved in the writ petition is common. The operative part of the impugned orders and reasoning of the learned Single Judge in allowing the respective writ petitions are similar. In this view, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present appeals by a common judgment.

7. A tabular statement setting out the writ petition number, name of the writ petitioner, the course, the aggregate marks as obtained and the examination paper wherein the marks awarded are less than 40, the marks awarded by the two evaluators and the average marks in the said paper are set out in the table below.

AND 5 OTHERS

8. For the purposes of anchoring the present decision on a factual matrix, we consider it apposite to treat W.A.No.2050/2025 (EDN-RES) as the lead matter.

9. The writ petitioner (respondent No.1) is a student undergoing the course of M.D. (General Medicine) in the University. She appeared in an examination conducted in September 2025, and secured an aggregate of 201 marks out of a maximum of 400 marks in the four theory papers. Whereas the marks obtained by her in theory papers I, II, and IV were above 40 out of 100, the marks obtained by her in paper III were 39. This was because one of the evaluators awarded 38 marks, while the other evaluator awarded 40 AND 5 OTHERS marks for the answer script. The average of the marks awarded by the two evalua