Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.37323 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. DR. V.S. KIRAN KUMAR

S/O N VEERABHADHRACHARI,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

R/AT INDIRA NAGARA,

HUCHAVVANAHALLI,

DAVANAGERE - 577534.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION(NMC)

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,

DWARKA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110077.

2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF

HEALTH SCIENCES (RGUHS)

4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 041.

REP. BY REGISTRAR (EVALUATION).

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sumana Baliga M.
For the Respondents: Showri H.R., Mamatha Kulkarni

Academic eligibility criteria and evaluation standards set by statutory regulations are within the domain of expert bodies. Where regulations explicitly prescribe a minimum passing threshold and prohibit re-evaluation or grace marks, courts cannot interfere or apply rounding off to satisfy eligibility, as strict adherence is required for fairness.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 - Evaluation of answer scripts - Rounding off of marks - Validity of threshold - Petitioner challenged the mandate of rounding off marks and the fixed 200/400 threshold for passing theory examinations as violative of constitutional rights - Regulations provide for two valuations by the University with averages rounded off to the nearest integer - Judicial review of academic standards and marks fixation by experts is restricted - Regulation 8.4(b) requires strict adherence to minimum aggregate marks prescribed - No grace marks permitted in post-graduate examinations - Dilution or tampering with eligibility criteria works injustice on other candidates. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 10, 16)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - An appellate court or judicial review cannot substitute its view for academic expert judgment unless there is manifest error - When regulations do not permit re-evaluation, such relief cannot be granted by courts - Sympathy or compassion plays no role in matters of re-evaluation. (Paras 12, 16, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a post-graduate student, challenged the regulatory criteria for theory examination evaluation, which mandates a minimum of 200 out of 400 marks. Having secured 199 marks, the petitioner sought to have the marks rounded off to the nearest passing integer or to have the requirement declared unconstitutional.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the regulatory requirement to secure 200 marks is a settled academic standard. The court observed that the challenged regulation had already been upheld in prior appellate decisions, confirming that there is no ambiguity in the valuation process that would warrant judicial interference.

Issues: Whether the mandatory threshold of 200 marks out of 400 and the prohibition on rounding off for the purpose of passing constitute a violation of constitutional equality and right to life, and whether the court can order an exception or re-evaluation.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility criteria for qualifying examinations, when prescribed by statutory regulations, must be strictly adhered to; dilution or tampering via judicial orders is impermissible as it undermines fairness. Courts cannot act as academic experts to substitute thresholds or award grace marks absent manifest illegalities.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE CLAUSE 8.4(B) OF THE 'CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF M.S./M.D./M.CH./DM COURSES' UNDER PGMER-2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE EXTENT IT MANDATES ROUNDING-OFF OF MARKS AND FIXES 200/400 AS THE RIGID THRESHOLD FOR PASSING THEORY EXAMINATIONS, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ARBITRARY, DISPROPORTIONATE, AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 - NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION TO ADOPT A FAIR AND REASONABLE METHOD OF COMPUTING FINAL THEORY MARKS, BY PERMITTING ROUNDING OF FINAL AGGREGATES WHEREVER THE CANDIDATE HAS SCORED 199 AND HAS OTHERWISE SATISFIED ALL ACADEMIC HEADS OF PASSING AND THEN DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ACCORDINGLY REVISE AND PUBLISH THE PETITIONER'S RESULT, ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

CAV ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the Clause 8.4(b) of the Criteria for Evaluation of M.S/M.D/M.Ch./DM courses of PGMER-2023 (Annexure-C) to the extent mandating the rounding off of marks and fixing marks at 200 marks out of total 400 marks as the rigid threshold for passing theory examinations, as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought for alternative relief seeking a direction to respondent No.1 - National Medical Commission to adopt fair method of computing final theory marks by permitting rounding off of final aggregate marks wherever the candidate has scored 199 marks and otherwise has satisfied all academic heads of passing and thereby direct respondent No.2 to declare the result of the petitioner as 'pass' in the examinations.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims to be admitted to the Post Graduate Degree Course in M.S. Orthopaedics at Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI) on 01.02.2022 and has completed his academic requirements prescribed under the PG Medical Education Regulations. Thereafter the petitioner was admitted to Post Graduate Course in the respondent No.2-University. It is stated that petitioner had appeared for the M.S. Orthopaedics examination held in September, 2025. The respondent No.2-University has declared the result of the petitioner, as 'fail'. It is the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner has secured 199 marks out of 400 marks i.e., falling short by 1 mark and therefore, the petitioner has presented this Writ Petition.

3. Heard Smt. Sumana Bailga M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Showri H.R., learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provision contained under Clause 8.4 of the Notification dated 29.12.2023 of the National Medical Commission and contended that, the criteria for valuation adopted by the respondent - University based on the aforementioned Notification is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By referring to the marks obtained by the petitioner herein, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has secured 199 out of 400 marks, however the petitioner - student is declared as 'fail' on account of the fact that the minimum passing marks for theory is 200 out of 400 marks and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is an error in counting the marks of the petitioner and disputing the procedure adopted by the respondent-University and therefore, sought for interference of this Court, alleging that Clause 8.4(b) of the Notification at Annexure-C requires to be set aside by this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. Showri H.R., learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.448/2025 and connected Appeals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23803

Cases Referred (2)