Karnataka High Court
National Medical Commission vs Dr K Sree Laxmi on 26 June, 2025
-1-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 448/2025
c/w
WRIT APPEAL NOS. 465/2025, 597/2025.
602/2025, 603/2025, 604/2025,
628/2025, 630/2025 AND 654/2025
IN WA NO.448/2025:
BETWEEN:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK EAST,
PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 041.
BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
DR. RIYAZ BASHA S
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. K. SREE LAXMI
D/O. AMARA LINGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KVG MEDICAL,
PG GIRLS HOSTEL COURT ROAD,
KURANJIBHAG SULIYA,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 327.
-2-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
2. DR. GARIKAPATI INDU VARSHINI
D/O. G ANJANEYA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT GLOBAL COURT APARTMENT 608,
NEAR KUNTIKANA JUNCTION,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
3. DR. VAISHNAVI T
35, NO.20, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
KGF, MUNNIREDDY LAYOUT VTC.,
MAHADEVAPUR P O,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
4. DR. VINAY KUMAR. R
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O RAMA KRISHNA GOWDA,
CHATRSKODIHALLI,
BEGLIHOSAHALLI POST,
KOLAR - 563 101.
5. DR. KAVURI SRI HARSHA
D/O KAVURI KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
404/8/1/101
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
H.NO.1 13 MAYER STREET,
NIZAMABAD NEAR RAGHAVA HIGH SCHOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 503 001.
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PG HOSTEL,
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
RESEARCH CENTRE,
MANGALORE - 575 018.
6. JYOTHI A
D/O ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.234/40,
BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
YANAPPA FARM HOUSE,
THIGALANAPALAYA, PINYA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 058.
-3-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
7. DR. KARUNYA K
D/O. KANNADASAN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A. NO.23, 2ND CROSS,
MCECHS LAYOUT, PHASE I,
HEGDE NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
8. DR. ATUL SURESH
S/O C K SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT PG HOSTAL AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
9. DR. KAUSHIK D S
S/O. T DEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
119, 1ST CROSS,
NIVEDITHA NATTAR,
MYSORE - 570 022.
10 . DR. SHREYAS V SORAGAVI
S/O DR. V R SORAGAVI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT SRI SAI 46, 4TH CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGAR, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 094.
11 . DR. ABHISHEK G.
S/O GANGADHARAPPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
HORAKEDEVARAPURA PO HD PURA,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557.
12 . DR. KIRTHI KIRAN
S/O K SAMPATH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 36N MADHUNIVAS 33RD MAIN,
5TH CROSS,
-4-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
OPP SANDHYA THEATER,
MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT,
1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
13 . DR. POOJA J.P
D/O PUTTASWAMY JK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT GURUKRIPA, 4TH 6 CROSS,
40 FEET ROAD,
MAHALAXMI NAGAR,
BATAWADE, TUMKUR - 572 103.
14 . DR. SYEDA ASRA FATIMA
W/O. DR. IRFAN VLLAH QUADRI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO.14, DISPENSARY ROAD,
KALASIPALYAM,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
15 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET-14, SECTOR - 8,
DWARKA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3, R4,
R6-R11, R13 AND R14;
MR. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
MR. YATISH S., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R5 AND R12;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R15)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-3438/2025 AND CONNECTED WRIT
PETITIONS AND DISMISS THE WP FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
ETC.,
-5-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
IN WA NO.465/2025:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14 SECTOR-8,
DWARAKA, PHASE -1,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. K. SREE LAXMI
D/O. AMARA LINGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KVG MEDICAL,
PG GIRLS HOSTEL COURT ROAD,
KURANJIBHAG SULIYA,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 327.
2. DR. GARIKAPATI INDU VARSHINI
D/O. G ANJANEYA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT GLOBAL COURT APARTMENT 608,
NEAR KUNTIKANA JUNCTION,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
3. DR. VAISHNAVI T
35, NO.20, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
KGF, MUNNIREDDY LAYOUT VTC.,
MAHADEVAPUR P O,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
4. DR. VINAY KUMAR. R
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O RAMA KRISHNA GOWDA,
CHATRSKODIHALLI,
BEGLIHOSAHALLI POST,
KOLAR - 563 101.
-6-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
5. DR. KAVURI SRI HARSHA
D/O KAVURI KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
404/8/1/101
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
H.NO.1 13 MAYER STREET,
NIZAMABAD NEAR RAGHAVA HIGH SCHOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 503 001.
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PG HOSTEL,
KANACHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND
RESEARCH CENTRE,
MANGALORE - 575 018.
6. JYOTHI A
D/O ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.234/40,
BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
YANAPPA FARM HOUSE,
THIGALANAPALAYA, PINYA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 058.
7. DR. KARUNYA K
D/O. KANNADASAN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/A. NO.23, 2ND CROSS,
MCECHS LAYOUT, PHASE I,
HEGDE NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
8. DR. ATUL SURESH
S/O C K SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT PG HOSTAL AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
9. DR. KAUSHIK D S
S/O. T DEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
119, 1ST CROSS, NIVEDITHA NATTAR,
MYSORE - 570 022.
-7-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
10 . DR. SHREYAS V SORAGAVI
S/O DR. V R SORAGAVI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT SRI SAI 46, 4TH CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGAR, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 094.
11 . DR. ABHISHEK G.
S/O GANGADHARAPPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
HORAKEDEVARAPURA PO HD PURA,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557.
12 . DR. KIRTHI KIRAN
S/O K SAMPATH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 36N MADHUNIVAS 33RD MAIN,
5TH CROSS, OPP SANDHYA THEATER,
MADIVALA, BTM LAYOUT
1ST STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
13 . DR. POOJA J.P
D/O PUTTASWAMY JK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT GURUKRIPA, 4TH 6 CROSS,
40 FEET ROAD,
MAHALAXMI NAGAR,
BATAWADE, TUMKUR - 572 103.
14 . DR. SYEDA ASRA FATIMA
W/O. DR. IRFAN VLLAH QUADRI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO.14, DISPENSARY ROAD,
KALASIPALYAM,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
15 . RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK EAST,
-8-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
PATTABHIRAMA NAGAR,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 041.
BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
DR. RIYAZ BASHA S,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R14;
MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R15)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-3438/2025 AND CONNECTED WRIT
PETITIONS AND DISMISS THE WP FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
ETC.,
IN WA NO.597/2025:
BETWEEN:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. IRAPPA S LAMANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
RESIDING AT NARENUR L T 2,
TALUK BADAMI,
-9-
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
DISTRICT BAGALKOT,
KARNATAKA - 587 206.
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No.7220/2025 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO.602/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. MANGUKIYA AXAY KANTHILAL
S/O KANTILAL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO. 21MG349,
- 10 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
R/O NO.3, WHITE HOUSE RESIDENCY,
VALLABHACHARYA ROAD,
HIRABAUG, VARACHA ROAD,
SURAT, GUJARAT - 395 006.
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No.6734/2025 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO.603/2025:
BETWEEN:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. KRUTHI K SHETTY
D/O KARUNAKARA SHETTY V.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT
ROOM NO.309,
PG GIRLS RESIDENT'S HOSTEL,
AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
- 11 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP NO.6113/2025 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO.604/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHANCELLOR .
2.
THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. NEUSHREE PANI
D/O NRUSINGHA PANI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
- 12 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
UNI. REG. NO. 21ME302,
R/A FLAT NO. 301,
JAGANNATH BHAVAN SURYA NAGAR,
BHUBANESHWAR,
KHORDA DISTRICT,
ODISHA - 751 003.
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-6767/2025 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO.628/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION,
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
- 13 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
AND:
1 . DR. AVNEESH LEEKHA
S/O NARESH KUMAR LEEKHA,
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS,
UNI REG NO. 21YE191,
R/O NO.29, LIVSTONIA III,
PRESENTATION FORM,
PALM GROVES CO-OP HSG SOCIETY,
B. T. KAWADE ROAD, PUNE,
MAHARASHTRA - 411 036.
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP No-6758/2025 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO.630/2025:
BETWEEN:
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR EVALUATION.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
- 14 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
AND:
1 . DR. SWATHI KRISHNA V
D/O HARSHA KUMAR P.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT
ROOM NO.309,
PG GIRLS RESIDENT'S HOSTEL,
AJ MEDICAL COLLEGE,
MANGALORE - 575 004.
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
12/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP NO.6127/2025 AND ETC.,
IN WA NO.654/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR.
- 15 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
2. THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION,
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MR. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALONG WITH
MRS. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . DR. SOUMYA B MALLASURE
D/O BASAVARAJ S MALLASURE
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
UNI. REG. NO.21ME014
R/O NO.13, SRI SRINIVASA NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR,
BANASHANKARI STAGE II,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
2 . NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET NO.14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA,
NEW DELHI - 110 077.
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MR. NURUDDIN KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
20.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT IN WP NO.6742/2025 AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.06.2025 THIS DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 16 -
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
These appeals impugne the order in the writ petitions
as under:
Sl.
Writ Appeal No. Impugned Writ Petitions
No.
1 WA No.448/2025 Order dated 24.02.2025 in WP Nos.
(EDN-RES) 3438/2025, 3443/2025, 3445/2025,
3464/2025, 3489/2025, 3525/2025,
3539/2025, 3554/2025, 3556/2025,
3671/2025, 4071/2025, 4089/2025,
4090/2025 and 4603/2025
2 WA No.465/2025 Order dated 24.02.2025 in WP Nos.
(EDN-RES) 3438/2025, 3443/2025, 3445/2025,
3464/2025, 3489/2025, 3525/2025,
3539/2025, 3554/2025, 3556/2025,
3671/2025, 4071/2025, 4089/2025,
4090/2025 and 4603/2025
3 WA No.597/2025 Order dated 12.03.2025 in
(EDN-EX) WP No.7220/2025
4 WA No.602/2025 Order dated 12.03.2025 in
(EDN-RES) WP No.6734/2025
5 WA No.603/2025 Order dated 12.03.2025 in
(EDN-EX) WP No.6113/2025
6 WA No.604/2025 Order dated 12.03.2025 in
(EDN-EX) WP No.6737/2025
7 WA No.628/2025 Order dated 12.03.2025 in
(EDN-RES) WP No.6758/2025
8 WA No.630/2025 Order dated 12.03.2025 in
(EDN-RES) WP No.6127/2025
9 WA No.654/2025 Order dated 20.03.2025 in
(EDN-RES) WP No.6742/2025
– 17 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions by
stating in paragraphs No.8 to 10 as under:
“8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the question that arises for consideration is:
“Whether rounding off at a percentage
level would be akin to providing grace
marks and whether the benefit of the order
passed in Dr. Guruprasad’s case and other
similarly placed petitioners would be
applicable to the petitioners as well?”
9. The petitioners are post graduate medical
students having failed by a fraction of percentage as
stated supra, are knocking at the doors of this Court
inter alia contending that the said fraction ought to
have been rounded off to the next whole number
which would resultantly pass the petitioners. Under
the PGMER-2023 Regulation, Regulation 8.4
stipulates that a student should secure a minimum of
40% in each paper with an aggregate of 50% in
theory paper and to secure minimum total marks of
200 / 400 for theory and practical plus viva 200/400.
It is noticed by this court that the marks obtained by
the petitioners, when turned into percentage is
arriving at 49.75%, 49.50% and 49.25%. The
situation being such that though the petitioners have
obtained 197, 198 and 199 out of 200 in theory the
percentage, which is arrived is in decimal. In the
case of DR.GURUPRASAD stated supra though the
decision was rendered during Covid pandemic, the
Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 permitted to round off
– 18 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
to the next full figure and this court, in
DR.GURUPRASAD’S case did not take into account
the Covid-19 pandemic, but what was considered by
this court is the arithmetical calculation. The
Regulations, which was later changed in the year
2020 has now been withdrawn, it is contended by
the respondent-RGUHS that rounding off would be
akin to granting grace marks. The rounding off a
percentage is a matter of arithmetical calculation and
not equivalent to granting of grace marks. The
PGMER-2023 Regulation does not explicitly prohibit
rounding off decimal values in percentage
calculation. The percentage to be rounded off to the
next whole number is a part of standard
mathematical practice. The petitioners who have
obtained point percentage, the standard arithmetic
rule dictates rounding off to 50%, which is a
mathematical adjustment.
10. The point percentage obtained by the
students i.e., 0.25%, 0.50% and 0.75% is the
marks, which has been obtained and at any rate it
cannot be taken away by holding that it has to be
49% and not 50%. For the foregoing reasons, the
point framed for consideration is answered in favour
of the petitioners and the writ petitions succeed and
the petitioners marks in theory examination is
rounded off from 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75% to
50% and the respondent University is directed to
– 19 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
consider the petitioners as ‘Pass’ and issue necessary
result sheet accordingly.”
2. At the outset we may state here that, Sri. Vivek
Subba Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
respondents No.2, 5 and 12 in WA No.448/2025;
Smt. Sumana Baliga, Advocate appearing for respondents
No.1, 3, 4, 6 to 11, 13 and 14 in WA No.448/2025 and
Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, Advocate appearing for
respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025, 604/2025,
628/2025 and 654/2025 state that, they appear for all the
respondents who were the petitioners before the learned
Single Judge in these appeals and as such, they can be
heard. If that be so, with consent of learned counsel for
the parties, the appeals have been finally heard.
3. The grievance of the respondents before the
learned Single Judge was with regard to inaction on the
part of the appellants herein being National Medical
Commission (‘NMC’ for short) and Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences (‘University’ for short) in not rounding
off the percentage to the next whole number.
– 20 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
4. The case of the respondent-students before the
learned Single Judge was primarily by relying upon the
following decisions passed by this Court, wherein
directions have been issued to the University to round off
the percentage to the next integer based on the ordinance
governing the Post-Graduate (PG) including PG diploma
and super speciality and subscript evaluation promoted by
the notification dated 29.12.2023:
i. Dr. Guruprasad -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University
[WP No.11348/2020, decided on 20.10.2020];
ii. Dr. B. Nagadivya -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences and Others
[WP No.17479/2021, decided on 30.09.2021];
iii. Rajiv Gandhi University -Vs.- Dr. Naga Divya
[RP No.384/2021 in WP No.17479/2021,
decided on 08.03.2021];
iv. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -Vs.-
Dr. Neelesh Mehta and Another
[WA No.547/2021, decided on 18.06.2021]
5. The case of the appellant-University before the
learned Single Judge was that, the respondent-Students
have failed to secure minimum 200/400 marks in PG
– 21 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
examination held in January 2025 and by seeking a
rounding off, they are literally seeking grace marks of 1 to
3 marks in the form of rounding off of the percentage from
49.25% (197/200 marks), 49.50% (198/200 marks) and
49.75% (199/200 marks) to 50% (200/400 marks) which
is impermissible. It was also their case that, the
judgments on which reliance has been placed were based
on the decision of the syndicate of the University on
12.11.2020, which was to overcome the situation arisen
due to COVID-19 pandemic, whereby the University
resolved to award rounding off, of percentage to the
students and as such, the judgments are not applicable.
In this regard, reliance was placed on the order of this
Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) to contend
that this Court has held the rounding off was allowed as
circumstances were not normal, as the entire country was
under lockdown and the PG students were frontline
workers, who were practically doing COVID duties round
the clock. Large number of doctors have lost their lives.
It is in this background, the syndicate of the University has
– 22 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
taken a policy decision dated 12.11.2020 and as such, the
judgments on which reliance had been placed are not
applicable.
Submissions:
6. The submission of Sri. Nuruddin Khetty, learned
counsel appearing for National Medical Council (‘NMC’ for
short) in WA No.465/2025 is that, the impugned order
dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is
wholly erroneous being contrary to law and facts and to
the materials placed before the Court. According to him,
the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that,
Regulations of 2023 clearly stipulates that in order to
declare as ‘pass’ in PG examination, a candidate has to
secure minimum marks of 200/400 in theory component
and minimum marks of 200/400 in practicals plus viva-
voce component and there is no provision for awarding
grace/additional marks. He stated that, the learned Single
Judge has failed to appreciate that Regulation 8.4 of
Regulations of 2023 stipulates the criteria for valuation of
theory papers along with computation of result. It also
– 23 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
states that, the grace marks are not permitted in theory or
practical in PG examinations. According to him, the
regulation contemplates rounding off of marks to nearest
integer (whole number) in theory component at one stage
i.e., during computation of result and the respondent-
students have failed to secure 200 marks despite rounding
up of marks in decimals as per Regulations of 2023. The
respondent-students have, after rounding off decimal
marks to the next highest number as per Regulations of
2023, secured 197, 198 and 199 marks and not 200
marks, as such, they were declared ‘fail’. This provision in
Regulations of 2023 has been made only to enable that
upon totaling the marks, there is no decimal such as
197.25, 198.5 or 199.75. Since the rounding off has been
done once already, the total marks have to be taken into
account and added and there is no question of rounding
off once again. There is no reference to percentage
deliberately so as to avoid rounding off. According to him,
the learned Single Judge has failed to understand that, by
changing the requirement for pass from 200 marks out of
400 to 50%, the learned Single Judge has allowed 3 grace
– 24 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
marks be given to the students, which is uncalled for and
for which the Courts have held that they have neither the
competency nor power to do so as the granting or
otherwise is in the domain of the regulator. He also
stated, the learned Single Judge has erred in observing
that, the judgment in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra)
did not take into account COVID-19 pandemic but
arithmetic calculations, which according to him, is not a
correct interpretation of the said judgment. He also stated
that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate
that, the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta
(supra), held that the syndicate’s decision dated
12.11.2020 to implement the order in the case of
Dr. Guruprasad (supra) for rounding off of percentage
should be extended to all examinations held during
COVID-19 in respect of PG course by appreciating the fact
that, the PG students undergoing PG courses were
frontline workers and practically doing COVID duties round
the clock and large number of doctors have lost their lives
and in respect of the same, no doctor has denied the
treatment to a patient suffering from COVID-19. In that
– 25 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
sense, the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) or
the later judgments/orders were in the facts of that case
and cannot have application to the facts which arises for
consideration in this batch of appeals as there was no
COVID situation in January 2025. He states, the present
appeals filed by the appellant-NMC need to be allowed and
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is
liable to be set aside.
7. The submission of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant-University (in all the
appeals) is primarily that, the learned Single Judge has
clearly erred in coming to the conclusion in the common
impugned order dated 24.02.2025 that the respondent-
Students are entitled to the rounding off of the
percentage. According to him, the principle of rounding
off has been stipulated in Post-Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2023 (‘Regulations of 2023’ for short) issued
by the NMC, wherein it is clearly laid down that, a
candidate need to secure minimum marks of 200/400 in
theory and minimum 200/400 in practicals plus viva-voce
– 26 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
component and there is no provision for awarding
grace/additional marks. In this regard, as was stated by
Sri. Khetty for NMC, he has also drawn our attention to
Regulation 8.4 which stipulates the criteria for valuation of
theory papers along with computation of results. A
reading of the said regulation makes it clear that, grace
marks are not permitted in theory or practical in PG
examinations. It is his submission that, the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate the fact that, the Regulations of
2023 permits rounding off to the nearest integer in theory
component at 1st stage i.e., during computation of results
and concedingly, the respondent-students have failed to
secure 200 marks despite rounding off, of marks in
decimals as per Regulations of 2023 by the appellant-
University. In fact it is his submission that, the
respondent-students after rounding off, of decimal marks
to next higher number as per Regulations of 2023, have
secured 197, 198 and 199 marks and not 200 marks and
they were rightly declared as ‘fail’. According to him, the
directions given by the learned Single Judge to round off
the percentage, is not contemplated under the Regulations
– 27 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
of 2023 at the time of computation of results. He stated
that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the
fact that, the appellant-University has not reduced the
percentage of respondent-students to 49%, nor has
reduced the marks of respondent-students in any manner
while computation and declaration of results. He stated,
even the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Guruprasad
(supra) to hold that, the Court did not take into account
the COVID-19 pandemic and considered arithmetical
calculations is clearly untenable. A related submission of
Sri. Chinnappa is that, the Division Bench’s observation in
the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) that syndicate’s
decision dated 12.11.2020 to implement the order of
Dr. Guruprasad (supra) for rounding off percentage
should be extended to all examinations held during COVID
in respect of PG course by appreciating the fact that the
PG students undergoing then PG courses were frontline
workers and practically doing COVID duties round the
clock and large number of doctors have lost their lives,
which is not the case herein. In fact, he laid stress on the
– 28 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
fact that the Regulations of 2023 stipulate the rounding
off, of decimal marks to nearest integer while computing
the result and does not stipulate rounding up of
percentage as the same amounts to awarding additional
marks and that no grace marks are permitted in PG
examination either for theory or for practical. The scope
of Regulations of 2023 is only that, the rounding up of
decimal marks to the nearest integer while computing the
result and does not stipulate rounding up of percentage as
the same amounts to awarding dual benefits and also
awarding grace marks, which is impermissible. In support
of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Haroon Adoni
[WA No.909/2023, decided on 02.11.2023]. Similarly
he has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Taniya Malik -Vs.-
Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [(2018)
14 SCC 129] and State of U.P. and Another -Vs.-
Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 10].
– 29 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
He seeks setting aside of the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge.
8. On the other hand, Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 5
and 12 in WA No.448/2025 would justify the order passed
by the learned Single Judge to contend that, the issue in
hand being covered by the judgments referred to by the
learned Single Judge and as such, the issue being no more
res integra, the judgment of the learned Single Judge need
no interference. He has drawn our attention to the
judgments/orders which have been referred to by the
learned Single Judge including the order in the case of
Dr. Guruprasad (supra) to contend that, the Court has
interpreted the ordinance issued by the University. It is
not a case that because of COVID reasons the benefit of
rounding off was given to the petitioners therein. In
support of his submissions, Sri. Reddy has drawn our
attention to paragraph No.3(b) of the order of the learned
Single Judge in Dr. Guruprasad’s case (supra), wherein
the Court has noted that, since the petitioner therein has
– 30 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
arithmetically secured 49.75%, the said percentage/figure
has to be rounded off to the next whole number, which is
50% as is contemplated in the ordinance. Similarly, he
has drawn our attention to the order of the learned Single
of the Delhi High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and
Another -Vs.- All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 5102],
wherein according to him, the Court has summed up the
law on the rounding off by referring to the order of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court, which relied upon the
principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of High Court of Hyderabad -Vs.- Murali Mohana
Reddy [Civil Appeals No.73/74 of 2019], wherein the
Court had directed adding of 1 mark or rounding off of
39.76% secured by the petitioner to 40%. In other words,
it is his submission that, rounding off of number is not
alien to the examination process and as such, there is no
reason for the appellants to deny the benefit of rounding
off as has been granted by the learned Single Judge.
Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case
of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) to contend that, therein
– 31 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
also the benefit has been given, wherein the Court has, on
the basis of the policy decision taken by the syndicate on
12.11.2020 for rounding off the percentage, which aspect
has been conceded by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant-University, has not interfered with the judgment
of the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he has also relied
upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Haroon Adoni
(supra) to contend that, the benefit of rounding off was
granted to the petitioner therein based on the order in the
case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) and there is no reason to
deny the benefit thereof to the respondent-students
herein. In other words, the learned Single Judge has
rightly granted the benefit to the respondent-students
herein. He laid stress on the fact that, in appeal by the
University (in that case), the Division Bench has rightly
dismissed the same. Similarly, he placed reliance on the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Harsha
-Vs.- State of Maharashtra and Another [2009 (5)
Mah LJ 57], wherein a reference was made by the Court
to the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of
Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) to state that, the concept
– 32 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
of rounding off is a well settled position of law and it would
be inequitable and unjust to deprive a candidate to
compete in entrance examination merely on the ground
that he/she is not eligible having scored a fraction of mark
less than 45% marks when it can be considered for
rounding off. He has also relied upon another judgment of
the Bombay High Court in the case of Anup Prakash
Vyas -Vs.- University of Pune and Another [(2013) 2
Mah LJ 630], wherein the Division Bench has granted the
benefit of rounding off.
9. Smt. Sumana Baliga makes similar submissions to
lay stress on the fact that, the issue in hand is covered by
the judgments/orders as referred to by Sri. Reddy in his
submissions. She submits that, the respondents cannot
be denied the benefit of the judgments which clearly
stipulates the rounding off the percentage to 50%. She
stated that, it is not because of the COVID situation that
the benefit thereof has been given to the candidates in
those cases. It is a case, as arithmetically the
respondent-students have secured the percentage of
– 33 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
marks as stated above, the figure has to be rounded off to
the next integer of 50%. She has also taken us through
all the judgments as referred to by Sri. Reddy.
10. Similarly, Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025,
604/2025, 628/2025 and 654/2025 made a submission
that the case of the respondent-students before the
learned Single Judge was that, the Regulations of 2023
have no applicability to the examination in question, as
their examination is governed by the Regulations of 2000
and which aspect has not been considered by the learned
Single Judge. He stated that, the Regulations of 2023 on
which much reliance has been placed by the counsel for
the appellants, have no applicability insofar as the
valuation of the answer sheet pursuant to the examination
held in terms of notification issued in January 2023, as the
syllabus and valuation of answer papers being part of the
examination, have to be under one common regulation.
He stated that, it was the syllabus of 2000 which governed
the examination and hence, valuation need to be under
– 34 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
the Regulations of 2000 and not 2023. He has also relied
upon the judgments as relied upon by Sri. Reddy in
support of his contention that, the issue having been
settled by the judgments referred to by the learned Single
Judge and it is a case where on the strength of an
interpretation to ordinance issued on 12.11.2020 by the
University that this Court has settled the position of law
with regard to rounding off, of the percentage, the benefit
of the judgments having been rightly given by the learned
Single Judge, no interference is called for.
Analysis:
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, the only issue which arises for
consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge is
justified in directing rounding off, of the percentage, in the
facts, in favour of the respondent-students to the next
integer of 50%?
12. Before we answer the issue which arises for
consideration, it is necessary to reproduce the ordinance
– 35 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
which was issued on 12.11.2020 by the University which
was the subject matter of the judgments as relied upon by
the learned Single Judge:
“Hon’ble Vice Chancellor explained about the
Hon’ble High Court direction regarding Writ petition
No.11348 of 2020 (EDN-RES) and asked syndicate
members to give opinion.
Registrar (Eva) sought the opinion of syndicate
whether to implement the Hon’ble High court order
or to go for an appeal.
Hon’ble members opined that it is better to
implement the court order to benefit the student
future.
Hon’ble Vice Chancellor informed the members
that there are three options(1) Considering the Covid-19 situation will
implement this court order to benefit the student.
(2) After implementing this court order, we will
go for an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court.
(3) We will round off the marks at evaluator
level, rounding off marks after taking average of 4+1
valuation and rounding off the marks after taking
total average of the marks. By doing this, we will not
give any options for students to go to the court.
– 36 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
And informed the members to opine on this.
Members opined to implement the third option
prospectively to benefit the students.
Dr. Jayakrishna H.J enquired about the recent
High Court order filed by a student regarding the
issue of Provisional Degree Certificate. Registrar
(Eva) briefed about the same and informed the
members that as per the statutes of RGUHS, Degree
Certificate will be issued only after the Convocation
Ceremony of that particular academic year and
Provisional Degree Certificate is widely accepted all
over the world and as per the court order for this
particular student will include a line saying that PDC
is as good as final degree certificate.
Prof. Rajesh Shenoy requested to bring in
changes in conduct of convocation ceremony to
benefit the students
Dr. Ravishankar Shetty and Dr. GR
Chandrashekar opined that the statistics shows that
university has not won many cases in the honble
high court, may be university panel of advocates are
not representing properly. Dr. Ravishankar Shetty
requested to conduct a meeting with panel of
advocates and suggested to terminate the advocates
from the panel who have served for more than 4
years and requested to present the list of panel of
advocates who have been working from past 5 years,
number of cases allotted to each lawyer and the
details of the fees paid to them
– 37 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
Hon’ble members congratulated Hon’ble Vice
Chancellor on winning a case with respect to
affiliation with Raja Rajarajeshwari Medical College,
Prof. Rajesh Shenoy and Dr Kiran Kumar N
requested Hon’ble Vice Chancellor to write to govt
seeking clarification on losing Karnataka state quota
seats from past 2 or 3 years, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor
informed the members that a letter has been written
to state govt.
Dr. Kiran Kumar N congratulated and
appreciated the efforts putforth by Additional Chief
Secretary to the Government of Karnataka in
winning this case and requested for proper measures
to be taken in regards to the surrendering of the
seats which are lost from past 3 years of state
Government quota.
Hon’ble Vice Chancellor informed the members
that based on the court order a letter will be written
to the college and state government for the
implementation of the court decision.
The syndicate has thereafter dissolved as under:
In view of the prevailing Covid-19 situation, It
was recommended to implement the Hon’ble High
Court direction regarding Writ petition No. 11348 of
2020 (EDN-RES) as a one time measure,”
– 38 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
13. Similarly, the Regulations of 2023 issued by NMC
on 29.12.2023 are also reproduced, more specifically
Regulation 8.4, which refers to valuation:
“8.4 Valuation:
а. All the teachers of the other colleges of the
concemed University or other Universities, who are
eligible to be post-graduate examiners, can perform
the valuation of the answerscripts.
b. All the answer scripts shall be subjected for
two valuations by the concerned University. The
average of the total marks awarded by the two
valuators for the paper, which is rounded off to the
nearest integer (whole number), shall be considered
for computation of the results. All the answer scripts,
where the difference between two valuations is 15%
and more of the total marks prescribed for the paper,
shall be subjected to third valuation. The average of
the best two total marks, awarded by the three
evaluators for the paper, rounded off to the nearest
integer (whole number), shall be considered for final
computation of the results.
c. After the computation and declaration of the
results, under no circumstances, revaluation is
permitted.
d. All the Health Universities/Institutions
imparting post-graduate courses shall implement
digital valuation.
– 39 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF M.S./M.D./M.Ch./DM
COURSES
S.No. Description M.S./M.D./
M.Ch./DM
Courses
1 THEORY
No. of Theory Papers 4
Marks for cach Theory Paper 100
Total marks for Theory Paper 400
Passing Minimum for Theory 200/400(40%
minimum in
each paper)
2 PRACTICAL/CLINICAL 300
3 VIVA VOCE 100Passing minimum for 200/400
Practical/Clinical including Viva
voce
The candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each
head of
passing which shall include(1)Theory – aggregate 50% (In addition, in each Theory paper
a candidate
has to secure minimum 40%)(2) Practical/Clinical and Viva voce – aggregate 50%
(3) If any candidate fails even under one head, he/she has to
re-appear for both Theory and Practical/Clinical and Viva voce
examination.
(4) Five per cent of mark of total marks of Clinical/Practical
and Viva Voce marks (20 marks) will be of dissertation/thesis
and it will be part of clinical/practical examination marks
External examiner outside the state will evaluate dissertation/
thesis and take viva voce on it and marks will be given on
quality of dissertation/thesis and performance on its viva
voce.
(5) No grace mark is permitted in post-graduate examination
either for
theory or for practical.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF P.G. DIPLOMA COURSES
S.No Description P.G. Diploma Courses
1 THEORY
No. of Theory Papers 3
Marks for each Theory 100
Paper
– 40 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
Total marks for Theory 300
Paper
Passing Minimum for 150/300(40%
Theory minimum in each
paper)
2 PRACTICAL/CLINICAL 200
3 Viva voce 100
”
14. It may be stated at the outset that, what was
considered by this Court in the judgments referred to by
the learned Single Judge is the notification issued on
12.11.2020 by the University. In other words, it was the
decision of the syndicate vide resolution/notification dated
12.11.2020, which contemplated implementation of the
order of this Court in Dr. Guruprasad (supra) as a one
time measure. It is also seen that, the decision of the
University was to render the benefit of the order in the
case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) because of COVID-19
situation. In any case it is the submission of Sri. Reddy
and other counsel for the respondents that, in the case of
Dr. Guruprasad (supra), the benefit of rounding off was
not because of COVID reasons, but as arithmetically the
petitioner therein had secured 49.75%, the directions
were given to round off to the next whole i.e., 50%.
– 41 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
In support of his submission, Sri. Reddy has relied upon
paragraph No.3(b) of the order of the learned Single Judge
in Dr. Guruprasad (supra). What is important is, the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra), wherein the Division Bench
has, in paragraph No.8, held as under:
“8. This Court has carefully gone through the
aforesaid judgment also. It was a case of awarding of
grace marks to a student undergoing Post Graduate
course. No such contingency as involved in the
present case was involved in the case decided by
Division Bench. This Court is not deciding the present
case under normal circumstances. This Court is
dealing with a situation where almost the entire
country is under lockdown and even the students
who are doing under Post Graduate Courses are the
frontline workers and are practically doing COVID
duties round the clock. Large number of Doctors
have lost their lives and inspite of the aforesaid we
have not come across a single case where a Doctor
has denied treatment to a patient suffering from
COVID, atleast to this Bench no such case has been
brought to the notice. Probably, the University
syndicate keeping in view various factors, the plight
of Doctors, their sacrifice to save mankind, has taken
a policy decision to round off the percentage by its
– 42 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
decision dated 12.11.2020, and therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court when once the
syndicate of the University under the provisions of
The Rajiv Gandhi University Act, 2006 has taken a
decision to round off the marks, the learned Single
Judge has rightly passed an order granting the
benefit to respondents No.1 and 2, not only this the
University cannot implement a judgment of the
syndicate in a selective manner. All examinations
were held during COVID time in respect of Post
Graduate Courses and granting benefit by the
University to one individual and denying the same to
another individual is certainly violative of Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, admission is declined.
No order as to costs.”
So, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is
very clear that, the benefit of rounding off was given
because of the COVID reasons and the same being a
justifiable reason, the individuals/candidates were
certainly entitled to the benefit thereof.
15. Sri. Reddy had also heavily relied upon the
judgment in the case of Dr. Haroon Adoni (supra), more
– 43 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
specifically paragraph No.6 thereof to contend that, when
the law continues to be in the statute books, till repealed
by the competent body, the benefit of ordinance and relief
thereof to the deserving candidates cannot be denied by
placing interpretation of the kind, the University wants this
Court to place on the clause in question. We are not
impressed by this submission of Sri. Reddy. What is
important is, the valuation of the answer sheet in the case
in hand is under the Regulations of 2023 issued by the
NMC. So, the issue need to be decided keeping in view
the said Regulations of 2023 and not the ordinance/
resolution of the University which was the basis of all the
decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order. Though the submission of Sri. Reddy and
Smt. Baliga and Sri. Malipatil is that, Regulations of 2023
are pari materia to the ordinance issued by the University
which was the subject matter in the judgments referred to
by the learned Single Judge and as such, the
interpretation given by the Division Bench would hold good
in these cases as well, we are unable to agree with the
– 44 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
said submission. We have already reproduced the
resolution passed by the University in the year 2020 and
the Regulations of 2023. The Regulations of 2023 more
specifically Regulation 8.4 which we have reproduced
above is very clear that, the benefit of rounding off is
contemplated only at the time of valuation by the two
valuators when the average of the total marks are
awarded by them which need to be rounded off to the
nearest integer and the rounding off shall be considered
for computation of the result. In other words, the
computation of the result must be on the basis of rounding
off, of the marks based on the valuation made by two
valuators and not thereafter. There is no stipulation in the
regulation, which contemplates rounding off of the
percentage of marks. In the present case, the
respondent-students have, on the basis of the valuation
made by the valuators, on the average of the total marks
awarded by them, secured 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75%.
This percentage is the reflection of marks pursuant to the
valuation by the two valuators.
– 45 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
16. Sri. Chinnappa is justified in his submission that
the above percentage is the reflection of the marks which
they have secured. In fact we find that, stipulation 5
states that, there is no grace marks permitted in PG
examination either for theory or practical. The relief which
has been sought by the respondent and granted by the
learned Single Judge is to round off the percentage to
50%, which in effect mean that the same shall have the
effect of granting grace marks for the candidates to reach
50%, which is impermissible. In fact, the Sl.No.1 under
Regulation 8.4 clearly stipulates the minimum passing
marks for theory is 200 out of 400. Concedingly, none of
the respondent-students have secured 200/400 as their
percentage was 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75%. So it must
follow that, the Regulations issued by the NMC govern the
valuation in the manner prescribed and nothing more can
be read into the same otherwise it would amount to
re-writing the Regulations by the Court, which is clearly
impermissible in law. Sri. Chinnappa is also justified in
– 46 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Taniya Malik (supra) wherein the Supreme
Court has, in paragraphs No.22 to 24, held as under:
“22. With regard to question as to rounding off
of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular
aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must
meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not
permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off
method to make up the minimum aggregate.
23. This Court, in Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha [Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012)
8 SCC 568 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 650 : 4 SCEC 664],
held as impermissible the rounding-off of eligibility
criteria in relation to qualifying examination for
admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). Relying
upon the decision rendered in Orissa Public Service
Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary [Orissa Public
Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary,
(2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] , this
Court observed: (G. Hemlatha case [Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012)
8 SCC 568 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 650 : 4 SCEC 664]
, SCC pp. 570-71, paras 8-12)“8. In Orissa Public Service
Commission v. Rupashree howdhary [Orissa
Public Service Commission v. Rupashree
Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2
– 47 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
SCC (L&S) 353] this Court in somewhat
similar fact situation considered whether the
eligibility criteria could be relaxed by the
method of rounding-off. The Orissa Public
Service Commission published an
advertisement inviting applications from
suitable candidates for the Orissa Judicial
Service Examination, 2009 for direct
recruitment to fill up 77 posts of Civil
Judges (JD). Pursuant to the advertisement,
the first respondent therein applied for the
said post. She took the preliminary written
examination. She was successful in the said
examination. She, then, took the main
written examination. The list of successful
candidates, who were eligible for interview,
was published in which the first
respondent’s name was not there. She
received the marksheet. She realised that
she had secured 337 marks out of 750 i.e.
44.93% of marks in the aggregate and
more than 33% of marks in each subject.
9. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa
Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial
Service Rules, 2007 (for short “the Orissa
Rules”), the candidates who have secured
not less than 45% of the marks in the
aggregate and not less than a minimum of
33% of marks in each paper in the written
examination should be called for viva voce
test. Since the first respondent therein had
secured 44.93% marks in aggregate she
was not called for interview/viva voce. The
first respondent approached the Orissa High
Court. The High Court allowed [Rupashree
Chowdhury v. State of Orissa, 2009 SCC
OnLine Ori 361 : (2010) 109 CLT 466] the
writ petition. The appeal from the said order
was carried to this Court.
10. After considering the Orissa Rules,
this Court in Rupashree Chowdhary
case [Orissa Public Service
– 48 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary,
(2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S)
353] held that Rule 24 thereof made it clear
that: (SCC p. 111, para 10)
’10. … in order to qualify in
the written examination a
candidate has to obtain a minimum
of 33% marks in each of the
papers and not less than 45% of
marks in the aggregate in all the
written papers in the main
examination.’
This Court observed that when emphasis is
given in the rule itself to the minimum
marks to be obtained, there can be no
relaxation or rounding-off. It was observed
that no power was provided in the
statute/Rules permitting any such rounding-
off or giving grace marks. It was clarified
that: (SCC p. 112, para 10)
’10. … The [Orissa] Rules are
statutory in nature and no dilution
or amendment to such Rules is
permissible or possible by adding
some words to the said statutory
Rules for giving the benefit of
rounding-off or relaxation.’
11. In our opinion, the ratio of this
judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of
this case. The judgment of the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vani
Pati Tripathi v. DG, Medical Education and
Training [Vani Pati Tripathi v. DG, Medical
Education and Training, 2002 SCC OnLine
All 1005 : AIR 2003 All 164] and the
judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Kuldip
Singh v. State of Punjab [Kuldip
Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC OnLine
P&H 649 : PLR (1997) 117 P&H 1] were
– 49 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
cited before us because they take the same
view. However, in view of the authoritative
pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public
Service Commission [Orissa Public Service
Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary,
(2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S)
353] , it is not necessary for us to discuss
the said decisions.
12. No provision of any statute or any
rules framed thereunder have been shown
to us, which permits rounding-off of
eligibility criteria prescribed for the
qualifying examination for admission to the
PG course in MSc (Nursing). When the
eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying
examination, it must be strictly adhered to.
Any dilution or tampering with it will work
injustice on other candidates. The Division
Bench [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences v. G. Hemalatha, 2010 SCC OnLine
Kar 5108] of the High Court erred in holding
that the learned Single Judge [G.
Hemalatha v. Registrar, 2010 SCC OnLine
Kar 5189 : (2011) 4 Kant LJ 286] was right
in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to
make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to
the PG course. Such rounding-off is
impermissible.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Thus the principle of rounding off method
could not be applied in view of the requirement to
obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for
interview in the instant case.”
17. Insofar as the submission of Sri. Malipatil on the
applicability of old Regulations of 2000 for the examination
– 50 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
is concerned, the same is not appealing for more than one
reason. Firstly, such a plea as stated by Sri. Malipatil
though pleaded, but was not advanced. Rather, the
respondents for whom he appears got the benefit of the
earlier judgment by the learned Single Judge in
Dr. K. Sree Laxmi -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences and Another [WP No.3438/2025
and connected petitions, decided on 24.02.2025]. He
concedes to the fact the judgment of which benefit has
been given to the appellants for whom he represents was
by interpreting Regulation 8.4 of the Regulations of 2023
and the respondents have not filed any appeal on the
ground it should be Regulations of 2000 which should hold
the field. Secondly, the NMC has, vide its communication
dated 28.11.2024, clarified that the examination in
question has to be governed by the Regulations of 2023.
The said communication has not been challenged by the
respondents for whom Sri. Malipatil appears.
18. In view of our above discussion, the impugned
orders dated 24.02.2025, 12.03.2025 and 20.03.2025
– 51 –
WA No.448/2025 and connected appeals
passed by the learned Single Judge are clearly untenable
and liable to be set aside; we do so accordingly.
The appeals are allowed.
In view of disposal of the appeals, pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
PA
CT:SK