Karnataka High Court
Dr Abhishek M Sutrave vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health … on 18 March, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 16960 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. ABHISHEK M. SUTRAVE,
S/O.MANJAL SUTRAVE,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.37, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, PATTEGEREPALYA,
BANGALORE-560 072.
...PETITIONER
(BY NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE-CHANCELLOR/REGISTRAR,
4TH BLOCK, EAST,
PATTABHIRAMANAGAR, JAYANAGAR,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 041.
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 2. GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED Y ITS PRINCIPAL,
COURT OF DR. SIDDIAH PURANIK ROAD,
KARNATAKA
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MAMATA RURURAO KULKARNI,
ADVOCATE RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
CLAUSE 5.I(B) OF THE ORDINANCE GOVERNING POST-GRADUATION
INCLUDING DIPLOMA AND SUPERSPECIALITY ANSWER SCRIPTS
EVALUATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-6(EXAM)/2018-19 DATED 29.03.2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-F, (II) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF DECLARATION TO HOLD THAT THE EVALUATION
DONE BY THE 5TH VALUATOR IN THE IMPUGNED DIGITAL VALUATION
SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE SUBJECT OF ADVANCED
TEACHING OF FUNDAMENTALS OF HOMEOPATHY (PAPER CODE A02)
FOR REGISTER NUMBER 21HC001 DATED 29.04.2024 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-B SHALL BE FINAL AND
BINDING, (III) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF DECLARATION THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE 4
VALUATORS WITHOUT A MODEL ANSWER KEY IS PATENTLY
ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR; (IV) PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND (V)
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDINANCE GOVERNING POST-
GRADUATION INCLUDING DIPLOMA AND SUPERSPECIALITY ANSWER
SCRIPTS RGU/AUTH/140-SYN/117-6(EXAM)/2018-19, DATED
29/03/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash Clause 5.I(B) of the Ordinance
Governing Post-Graduation Including Diploma and
Super speciality answer scripts evaluation issued by
the 1st respondent bearing No.RGU/AUTH/140-
SYN/117-6(Exam)/2018-19 dated 29.03.2019 vide
Annexure-F,
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
declaration to hold that the evaluation done by the 5th
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
valuator in the impugned digital valuation slip of the
petitioner for the subject of advanced teaching of
fundamentals of homeopathy (paper code A02) for
register number 21HC001 dated 29.04.2024 issued by
the respondent No.1, vide Annexure-B shall be final
and binding,
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
declaration that the valuation done by the 4 valuators
without a model answer key is patently arbitrary and
unfair;
(iv) Pass such other writ, order or direction in the
interest of justice and equity and
(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the ordinance governing post-
graduation including diploma and super speciality
answer scripts RGU/AUTH/140-syn/117-6(Exam)/
2018-19, dated 29/03/2019 vide Annexure-F.
2. The petitioner is a student of the 2nd respondent-
Government Homeopathic Medical College, (for
short, ‘GHMC’), Bengaluru, having completed his
Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery, (for
short ‘BHMAS’) from GHMC in the year 2021,
obtained an aggregate score of 2721/4600 in the IV-
year UG course.
3. The petitioner thereafter approached the All India
Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) ,
and appeared for the AIAPGET examinations for the
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
course of MD in Homeopathy on 18.09.2021. In
terms thereof, results came to be declared on
21.10.2021, and the petitioner obtained an All-India
rank of 36 with a score of 310/480 amounting to
99.44 percentile. The petitioner was informed that
the counselling for seat allocation would be held on
17.03.2022, and the document verification would
take place on 21.03.2022. The petitioner having
attended both the above was granted admission to
GHMC for the MD course for an Ayush Degree/
Practice of Medicine (Homeopathy) which had
commenced on 18.04.2022.
4. The first year MD examination was conducted from
31.10.2023 to 04.11.2023 and the petitioner
appeared in all the examinations including theory
and practicals. The results of the Ist year MD
examinations were declared on 11.12.2023, in which
the petitioner had cleared two out of three papers.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
5. In the subject-Advanced Teaching of Fundamentals
of Homeopathy the petitioner obtained 86/150 marks
(theory 46/100, average of 4 valuations, practical
and viva 40/50). The petitioner though scored 80%
in his practical examination, but failed in the theory
examination of the aforesaid subject. The petitioner
appeared for the second attempt re-examination of
that subject on 14.03.2024. The results of the
second attempt/re-examination were announced on
29.04.2024, the petitioner received a total score of
87/150 (theory 44/100, practical and viva 43/50).
6. The petitioner having noticed the difference between
the highest marks awarded by Evaluator No.II and
the lowest marks awarded by Evaluator No.I was
over 15%, requested for it to be referred to
Evaluator No.V, which on such reference, Evaluator
No.V awarded the petitioner 55 marks out of 100 in
theory.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
7. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd
respondent-GHMC on 03.06.2024 contending that
there was arbitrary awardal of marks and there was
gross disparity between the marks. However, did not
receive any response to the representation submitted
by the petitioner on 03.06.2024 and it is in that
background the petitioner is before this Court
seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
8. The submission of Shri. Nitin Ramesh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that
8.1. There is complete and gross disparity and
arbitrary awardal of marks by the evaluators.
The petitioner is a meritorious student, the
petitioner succeeded in the entrance exam by
being awarded 310 out of 480 marks with
99.44 percentile. The petitioner having secured
all India rank of 36.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
8.2. The petitioner also having done exceedingly
well in the practicals, in the first attempt having
secured 40 out of 50 and in the second attempt
having secured 43 out of 50, the same
indicates the proficiency of the petitioner. When
the petitioner has done so well in the practicals,
the valuation made of the theory paper is not
proper and as such he submits that the manner
in which the marks have been awarded is not
justified. He submits that in the second attempt
of the theory examination, he had obtained the
highest marks of 51 by the Evaluator-II and
lowest of 35 marks by the Evaluator-I. The
Evaluator-V having awarded 55 marks, it is the
said marks allotted by the Evaluator-V, which is
required to be taken into account and if the
same were taken into account, the petitioner
would have to be declared passed in the
aforesaid subject.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
8.3. The reference to Evaluator-V being made on the
ground that the Evaluator-V is a more
experienced Evaluator and the Evaluator-V
being a Professor, which is a senior post. The
said Evaluator-V having now evaluated the
answer script of the petitioner and having
awarded much higher marks, it is this higher
marks, which would have to enure to the
benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner having
scored 86% in the practical examination cannot
be declared failed on the basis of improper
correction/valuation of the theory paper.
8.4. The valuation made by all the evaluators
smacks of arbitrariness, non-application of
mind and incompetence on part of the
evaluators.
8.5. The Ordinance Governing Homeopathy
(Postgraduate Degree Course) MD (HOM) 2016
states that, if a candidate has failed in a
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
subject, he will have only one attempt to clear
the said subject, failing which, he would have to
reappear for the examinations for all the
subject papers in the first year.
8.6. In view of the arbitrary evaluation, the
petitioner would be forced to lose one year and
as such, the petitioner cannot be made to bear
the brunt of the improper evaluation.
8.7. The ordinance has not been approved by the
Academic Council (for short ‘AC’) and the
Syndicate insofar as the postgraduate course is
concerned, what has been approved is only the
ordinance for the undergraduates.
8.8. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the
University have sought to as if contend that the
ordinance is approved for the postgraduate
course, which in fact is not so. There being no
ordinance approved for the postgraduate
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
course, there is a vacuum which needs to be
filled up by this Court and this Court would be
required to pass an order in the interest of the
student that is to say a student-friendly order is
to be passed.
8.9. His submission is that if the ordinance of
postgraduate course is eschewed, then what
would be applicable is the discretion of this
Court to be exercised in the better interest of
the student taking into consideration the
background of the students.
8.10. To support the above, he submits that on
21.02.2019, the Committee of Academic
Council(for short ‘CAC’) held a meeting. As per
the meeting of the CAC, subject 17 was the
approval of the revised ordinance governing
undergraduate evaluation. Even this, though
approved by the CAC, was without any
deliberations since the minutes do not reflect
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
any such deliberation and the approval being in
a single line recorded in the minutes. As such,
he contends that the approval of subject 17 is
without application of mind, thereby not
constituting effective consultation.
8.11. The Syndicate, in its 140th meeting held on
27.02.2019 had approved the revised ordinance
in terms of subject 17 and approved subject 17
being the revised ordinance governing valuation
of undergraduate students. Again he submits
that the Syndicate also did not have any
deliberations on the said subject. There was no
effective application of mind and as such, the
approval by the Syndicate is also not proper.
8.12. Though the CAC and Syndicate only approved
the ordinance governing valuation of
undergraduate students, the impugned
ordinance governing postgraduate students
including Diploma and Super speciality was
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
brought into effect on 01.03.2019, which has
never been considered either by the CAC or by
the Syndicate. Therefore, he submits that the
same is in violation of sub-section (3) of
Section 35 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short ‘RGUHS
Act’).
8.13. No such ordinance could have been brought into
force or effect without the Syndicate having
effectively consulted the Academic Council.
8.14. The CAC being a subcommittee constituted by
the AC could only recommend to the AC and it
is for the AC to have considered the
recommendation and applied its mind to it and
in turn, made a recommendation to the
Syndicate, which also could not have been
accepted by the Syndicate blindly, but could be
accepted by the Syndicate only after
deliberation and discussion on the said subject.
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
8.15. None of the above having been done. His
submission is that there is a violation of sub-
section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS Act. The
said sub-section (3) of Section 35 is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“35. Ordinance –
(1) XXXX
(2) xxxx
(3) In making an ordinance the Syndicate
shall consult.-
(a) the Boards of Studies in mattes relating to
the appointment and duties of examiners; and
(b) the Academic Council in matter relating to
conduct or standard of examination or conditions
of residence of students. Syndicate.”
8.16. He submits that the Vice-Chancellor and the
Registrar of the RGUHS issued two separate
corrigendums. One was to effect a change in
the minutes of the meeting of the CAC held on
21.02.2019 relating to subject 17 and second
to effect a change in the minutes of the
meeting of the Syndicate held on 27.02.2019
by insertion of the words “PG”.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
8.17. These corrigenda having been inserted and/or
approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the
Registrar are not one’s which are approved by
the CAC or the AC or the Syndicate. None of
them having considered the corrigenda and
approved the insertion of the alphabets PG.
8.18. On 17.06.2019, when a meeting of the AC was
convened, the AC ratified the minutes of the
meeting of CAC held on 21.02.2019, such
ratification was without any deliberation. The
AC could not have blindly ratified the minutes
of the CAC without deliberating on the
consequences and implications of the
recommendation of the CAC. Such ratification is
mechanical in nature and as such is not
sustainable. The mandatory requirement under
law being of promulgation of an ordinance by
the Syndicate only after prior consultation with
the AC is therefore clearly violated, as the AC
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
has neither deliberated on the subject matter
nor is it considered in detail the
recommendation of the CAC and or ratified the
same prior to the ordinance being passed. His
submission is that the AC has only ratified the
meeting of CAC dated 21.02.2019.
8.19. The CAC itself not having ratified the
corrigendum, the question of AC ratifying the
corrigendum would not arise. Even if, the
process of ratification is accepted to be valid,
the ratification is only for an ordinance to
undergraduate students and not for PG
students as such, the said ordinance could
never have been applied to the PG students.
8.20. He places reliance on the decision in the case of
Basaanth K.B. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences and Another1, more
particularly paragraph Nos.16 and 31 of the
1 2021 SCC OnLine Kar. 483
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
judgment, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
“16. Be that as it may, if the Vice-Chancellor
invoked the special powers under Section
13(2) exercising the powers vested on Academic
Council, the question that would arise for
consideration is whether the Vice-Chancellor could
exercise such powers, in the matter of
promulgation of Ordinances which is a subordinate
legislation. As rightly pointed out by the learned
Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., subordinate
legislation should not be manifestly arbitrary. In
the case of Cellular Operators Association of
India (supra), Their Lordships have noticed two
judgments in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd.
Vs. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304 and
Sharma Transport Vs. State of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC
188, where it was held that the tests of arbitrary
action which apply to executive actions do not
necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order
that delegated legislation can be struck down such
legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law
which could not be reasonably expected to
emanate from an authority delegated with the law
making power. Moreover, this Court has already
considered as to whether the consultation process
stipulated under Section 35(3)(b) is mandatory or
directory. It has been held that the consultation
with the Academic Council is mandatory and the
consultation contemplated under the said
provision is not a formal consultation but an
effective consultation. There is sufficient force in
the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri
Arun Kumar K., that the special powers conferred
on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) cannot
be stretched to enable the Vice-Chancellor to
exercise the powers and functions of the Academic
Council, which is an expert body, more so, in the
matter of promulgation of Ordinance or
amendments to the Ordinance, in matters
touching upon the conduct or setting standards of
examination. The powers conferred under Section
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 202413(1) on the Vice-Chancellor is to exercise general
supervision and control over the affairs of the
university and give effect to the decisions of all the
authorities of the university.
31. Before parting, this Court deems it fit to
remind the respondent-University and the National
Medical Commission that His Lordship Krishna
S.Dixit J., had made thought provoking
observations in the matter of digital evaluation of
answer papers and the need for model key
answers. The petitioners had raised objection as to
the level of efficacy and transparency in the
matter of Digital Valuation. The students had
pressed for introduction of the concept of Model
Key Answers on the ground that it would reduce
the vagaries of valuation and evaluators by
providing some yardstick. The submissions of the
learned Senior Counsel representing the
respondent-University that matters relating to
examination, valuation of papers and modalities of
valuation, fall within the exclusive domain of the
campus and ordinarily Courts do not take up a
roving enquiry, more so, when they relate to the
fast growing Medical Science and Technology was
noticed. Regard was also had to the explanations
given by the Registrar (Evaluation) on the
difficulties in immediately implementing the
system of Model Key Answers. The co-ordinate
Bench noticed that the University was not averse
to welcoming expert views from the community of
the students for improving the system as such.
The manner in which the impugned Ordinance was
issued, without seeking the opinion of an expert
body like the Advisory Council, does not augur
well for the future of medical education. While
framing policies, opinion of the experts should be
sought and the grievance of the student
community should also be heard. A policy having
broad vision would be least susceptible to
challenge. Therefore, this Court takes this
opportunity to once again remind the respondent-
University and the National Medical Commission to
ponder over the observations and come up with a
policy which would be in the best interest of
medical education.”
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
8.21. By relying on Basaanth K.B. case, he submits
that the stipulation under Section 35(3)(b) is
mandatory and the consultation contemplated
under the said provision is not mere
consultation, but is a effective consultation. He
submits that no clear recording of what
deliberation has been made as to what has
taken place either before the CAC or before the
Syndicate with regard to the ordinance
governing post graduates has been placed on
record. This non consultation is a glaring legal
infraction and as such the post graduation
ordinance cannot be said to be valid. The
approval by the Registrar and the Vice-
Chancellor would not amount to approval by
the CAC or AC or the Syndicate.
8.22. He submits that the corrigendum was only
signed by the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
the University. There is no power vested with
the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor to issue a
corrigendum. The corrigendum ought to have
been approved by the CAC, then by the AC, and
thereafter by the Syndicate. Even if there was
an oversight in the typing, the said oversight
ought to have been accepted and approved by
the CAC, AC, and then the Syndicate.
8.23. There is manifest arbitrariness in the ordinance
itself, it having provided that in case of
deviation total marks awarded by any two
evaluators is equal to or more than 15% of the
maximum marks prescribed, then the answer
paper would go for Vth Evaluation.
8.24. The ordinance suffers from manifest
arbitrariness, inasmuch as there being a
difference of 15% between the highest valuer
and the lowest valuer among the four valuers.
A fifth valuer having been appointed, there is
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
no purpose served by averaging the marks of
top four valuers. The fifth valuer being a more
competent valuer and senior in rank to the
other valuers, the valuation submitted by the
fifth valuer is required to be considered.
8.25. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., & Ors.,
Vs. Union Of India & Ors2, more particularly,
paragraphs 75 and 78, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“75. A piece of subordinate legislation does
not carry the same degree of immunity which is
enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent
Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be
questioned on any of the grounds on which
plenary legislation is questioned. In addition it
may also be questioned on the ground that it does
not conform to the statute under which it is made.
It may further be questioned on the ground that it
is contrary to some other statute. That is because
subordinate legislation must yield to plenary
legislation. It may also be questioned on the
ground that it is unreasonable, unreasonable not
in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the
sense that it is manifestly arbitrary. In England,
the Judges would say “Parliament never intended2
(1985) 1 SCC 641 | 1984 INSC 231
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
authority to make such rules. They are
unreasonable and ultra vires”. The present
position of law bearing on the above point is
stated by Diplock, L.J. in Mixnam’s Properties
Ltd. v. Chertsey Urban District Council thus:
“The various special grounds on which
subordinate legislation has sometimes been
said to be void … can, I think, today be
properly regarded as being particular
applications of the general rule that
subordinate legislation, to be valid, must be
shown to be within the powers conferred by
the statute. Thus, the kind of
unreasonableness which invalidates a bye-law
is not the antonym of ‘reasonableness’ in the
sense in which that expression is used in the
common law, but such manifest arbitrariness,
injustice or partiality that a court would say:
‘Parliament never intended to give authority to
make such rules; they are unreasonable and
ultra vires’…if the courts can declare
subordinate legislation to be invalid for
‘uncertainty’ as distinct from
unenforceable…this must be because
Parliament is to be presumed not to have
intended to authorise the subordinate
legislative authority to make changes in the
existing law which are uncertain.”
78. That subordinate legislation cannot be
questioned on the ground of violation of principles
of natural justice on which administrative action
may be questioned has been held by this Court
in Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area
Committee, Tulsipur, Rameshchandra Kachardas
Porwal v. State of Maharashtra and
in Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. A
distinction must be made between delegation of a
legislative function in the case of which the
question of reasonableness cannot be enquired
into and the investment by statute to exercise
particular discretionary powers. In the latter case
the question may be considered on all grounds on
which administrative action may be questioned,
such as, non-application of mind, taking irrelevant
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
matters into consideration, failure to take relevant
matters into consideration, etc, etc. On the facts
and circumstances of a case, a subordinate
legislation may be struck down a arbitrary or
contrary to statute if it fails to take into account
very vital facts which either expressly or by
necessary implication are required to be taken into
consideration by the statute or, say, the
Constitution. This can only be done on the ground
that it does not conform to the statutory or
constitutional requirements or that it offends
Article 14 or Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It
cannot, no doubt, be done merely on the ground
that it is not reasonable or that it has not taken
into account relevant circumstances which the
Court considers relevant.”
8.26. By relying on the Indian Express case, his
submission is that subordinate legislation does
not enjoy the same degree of immunity as that
of a statutory body and any act by the
subordinate legislation is open to scrutiny in the
larger sense of it possibly having been
unreasonable and thereby manifestly arbitrary.
8.27. In the instant case, the impugned ordinance
being in contravention to the statutory
requirement under Section 35(3) is thus
manifestly arbitrary and the same having been
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
carried out by subordinate legislation is thus
open to be challenged before this Court.
8.28. He also refers to the decision in the case of
Cellular Operators Authority of India &
Ors. Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India and Ors.3, more particularly paragraphs
42, 68, and 69 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“42. We have already seen that one of the
tests for challenging the constitutionality of
subordinate legislation is that subordinate
legislation should not be manifestly arbitrary. Also,
it is settled law that subordinate legislation can be
challenged on any of the grounds available for
challenge against plenary legislation. (See Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India [Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India, SCC at p. 689, para 75.)
68. The context in which this statement occurs in
para 23 is very different from the present context.
This Court in DSC-Viacon Ventures (P) Ltd. held
that a toll can only be collected for maintaining a
road. The patches in which the road is not properly
maintained should reduce proportionately the
amount of toll that is to be paid. As there was no
data in that case to indicate the extent of road
length and the resultant inconvenience to users of
the road, a certain amount of guesswork was said
to be unavoidable. The present is a case in which
we are not informed as to how rupee one is
computed, how three call drops per day has been3 (2016) 7 SCC 703 | 2016 INSC 410
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024arrived at, or why the calling party alone is
provided compensation. These matters go out of
mere guesswork, and into the realm of
unreasonableness, as obviously, as has been held
by us, there was no intelligent care and deliberation
before any of these parameters have been fixed.
69. We have already seen that the impugned
Regulation is dated 16-10-2015, which was to come
into force only on 1-1-2016. We have been shown a
technical paper issued by the same Authority on
13-11-2015 i.e. a few days after the impugned
Regulation, in which the Authority has itself
recognised that 36.9% of call drops take place
because of the fault at the consumer’s end. Instead
of having a relook at the problem in the light of the
said technical paper, the Authority has gone ahead
with the impugned Regulation, which states that
the said Regulation has been brought into force
because of deficiency of service by service providers
leading to call drops. The very basis of this
statement contained in the Explanatory
Memorandum to the impugned Regulation is found
by the selfsame Authority to be incorrect only a few
days after publishing the impugned Regulation. This
itself shows the manifest arbitrariness on the part
of TRAI, which has not bothered to have a relook
into the said problem. For all the aforesaid reasons,
we find that the impugned Regulation is manifestly
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14, and is
an unreasonable restriction on the right of the
appellants’ fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g)
to carry on business, and is therefore struck down
as such.”
8.29. By relying on Cellular Operators’ case, he
submits that unreasonable acts done without
application of mind amounts to manifestly being
arbitrary and in that regard the CAC having
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
approved the impugned ordinance against
statutory practice is without any application of
mind and is manifestly arbitrary requiring to be
quashed.
8.30. Apart from the ordinance being manifestly
arbitrary in law, its implementation is also
manifestly arbitrary in practice. In this regard,
his submission is that the evaluators are not
properly trained. If at all they had been trained
in evaluation and had competency in the
subject, there could not be such a wide gap
between the valuations done by different
valuators. A 15% difference is considerably
large. Taking into account the seriousness of
the education of a student, such a wide gap in
valuation can only be said to be arbitrary.
There can be no other explanation for the
same.
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
8.31. The first valuer awarded 51 marks, the second
valuer awarded 40 marks, the third valuer
awarded 40 marks, and the fourth valuer
awarded 52 marks. The tabular statement of
each of the valuer’s marks for each question is
as per Annexure-D1 and the same is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Question EVALUATION LEVEL No. I II III IV V 1 5 4 4 7 - 2 5 4 3 6 - 3 5 4 3 5 - 4 5 4 3 4 - 5 6 4 4 5 - 6 5 4 5 5 - 7 5 4 4 5 - 8 5 4 4 5 - 9 5 4 5 5 - 10 5 4 5 5 - TOTAL 51 40 40 52 -
8.32. Valuer 1 and valuer 4 awarded 51 and 52
marks respectively, but the marks which have
been awarded for different questions and
answers inter se between them is also different.
Thus, his submission is that there is no
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
consistency in the valuation made by valuer 1
and valuer 4.
8.33. Similar is the submission made as regards the
marks awarded by valuer 2 and valuer 3, both
of whom awarded total marks of 40, but marks
awarded to each of the answers is different, by
placing reliance on the aforesaid table. The
valuation by the fourth valuer is also arbitrary.
8.34. The methodology of valuation of the theory
papers and the same being arbitrary, is also
established by the difference in the marking of
the theory and practicals. The petitioner,
having secured 43 out of 50 in practicals, has
been declared failed in theory. The petitioner
having secured 86% in practical’s, has been
awarded less than 50% in theory.
8.35. The entire marking and evaluation system of
the respondent University is flawed. The cause
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
for this, he submits, is the absence of a model
key or any objective benchmark, there being no
efficacy or transparency in the digital evaluation
process. If a model answer key had been
provided to all the valuators, there could have
been some consistency in the marking. The
marking by the evaluators is subjective and
arbitrary and has caused immense harm and
injury to the petitioner. The model answer key,
if provided, the valuation could have been
verified. Since no such model evaluation key
has been provided, there is no methodology to
verify the evaluation to be correct or not, and
as such, the subjective valuation by the valuers
has been accepted, which is not in the interest
of either the University or the students.
8.36. In this regard, he refers to the meeting of the
AC on 28.06.2024, where the AC had
deliberated upon providing of answer keys,
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
which he submits indicates that even the AC is
of the opinion that model key has to be
provided to cater to these kind of situations.
8.37. Lastly, he submits that University on
11.09.2024 had issued certain guidelines for
double evaluation system in UG examination, in
terms of which, if there is a deviation
evaluation by two evaluators, the same would
be sent to the third evaluator and the highest
of the best two total marks awarded by the
three evaluators for the paper rounded off to
the nearest value would be considered in the
final computation of marks.
8.38. Prior to 11.09.2024, he submits that both UG
and PG evaluation was conducted in a similar
manner. Now post 11.09.2024, the valuation
for UG is done differently in as much as the
valuation is done by two evaluators and the
highest of the two evaluators is taken into
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
consideration whereas for PG, there is valuation
done by four valuers, and on deviation, referred
to a fifth valuer, the average of the highest 4
valuations is taken for computation of results.
8.39. Similarly, he submits that the PG student would
also have to be treated like the UG student, and
the best of the marks awarded by all the
evaluators is required to be taken into
consideration. If that were to be done, the fifth
evaluator having awarded 55 marks, valuer 1
and valuer 4 having awarded 51 and 52 marks
respectively, if three of the highest valuations is
taken out of five, then the average would lead
to the petitioner having passed the
examination.
8.40. This, he submits, is without prejudice to the
earlier argument that the fifth valuer, being a
senior person having more competence, it is
the valuation of the fifth valuer alone which
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
would have to be taken into consideration,
which would lead to the petitioner having
passed the exam.
8.41. As regards prejudice, he submits that the
petitioner had taken readmission and appeared
for the examination conducted in the month of
August, and this Court, vide order dated 13-8-
2024, having observed that the petition being
required to be decided on merits, the
petitioner’s participation in any examination will
not prejudice his case as canvassed in the
petition. If the petitioner were now declared to
be failed, prejudice would be caused to the
petitioner, which is not the purport and intent
of the order dated 13-8-2024. On the basis of
all the above submissions, he submits that the
writ petition is required to be allowed.
9. Sri. Madhusudhana R. Naik, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the University, submits that,
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
9.1. From May 2015 onwards, the University
introduced digital evaluation system for all
answer scripts of all examinations in the health
sciences subject. In order to bring clarity to the
procedure of evaluation, the Syndicate of the
University in its 140th meeting held on 28-02-
2019 promulgated an Ordinance called,
“Ordinance Governing Post-Graduation,
including PG Diploma and Super-Specialty
Answer Scripts Evaluation”, which came into
effect for all examinations conducted on or after
01-03-2019.
9.2. In terms of the said ordinance, as per Clause
3(i)(a) General Valuation would mean four
evaluations conducted by four independent
valuators of a particular theory answer script.
Clause 4(a) prescribes the procedure for
general valuation, as per which all answer
scripts of postgraduate including PG diploma
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
and super speciality courses in Medical/Dental/
Homeopathy shall be subjected to Digital
Valuation as prescribed by the RGUHS and the
average of the total marks awarded by the four
evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off
to the nearest value, shall be taken into
consideration for computing the results.
9.3. In terms of Clause 3(ii)(a), which deals with
Deviation Valuation, he submits that in case of
deviation between total marks awarded by any
two valuators in the General Valuation is equal
to or more than 15% of the maximum marks
prescribed for the paper, then it would be
referred to a fifth evaluator.
9.4. In terms of Clause 5, all the answer scripts
would be referred to the fifth valuator and the
average of the best four total marks for the
paper awarded by the five evaluators rounded
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
off to the nearest value shall be considered for
final computation of the results.
9.5. This system, he submits has been in existence
for all the examinations conducted on or after
01-03-2019, which was to the knowledge of the
petitioner when he took up the course and
appeared for the examination held in the month
of October, 2023 and cleared two papers out of
three.
9.6. The third paper in Advanced Teaching of
Fundamentals of Homeopathy, not having been
cleared, he appeared for the second attempt,
where there being a deviation, was referred to
the fifth valuator, and the aforesaid procedure
was followed.
9.7. The petitioner therefore cannot question either
the ordinance or the clauses thereof. The relief
now sought for that it is only the marks
– 35 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
awarded by the fifth evaluator which would
have to be taken into consideration is not
sustainable.
9.8. The present matter relates to Post-graduation,
which requires a thesis or dissertation with
detailed commentary and as such, the said
examination is not conducted on objective type
questions and therefore it is difficult to provide
model answers for the descriptive type
questions. There being more than 3000 number
of question paper codes for various Post-
graduate and Undergraduate courses and each
question paper code minimum 10 numbers of
question paper sets have to be prepared by the
University, preparation of model key answers
for all the above is not practical. Hence the
claim of the petitioner that model valuations
scripts have to be provided, cannot be
accepted.
– 36 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
9.9. The Ordinance providing that there is no
revaluation after the 5th valuation, there is no
scope of judicial review of the said ordinance by
this court in writ jurisdiction which is
permissible and in this regard, he relies upon
the Order dated 17.12.2021 of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Vishweshwara C Vs.
Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences and Anr.4
more particularly, paras 28 to 34 which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“28. The respondent-University is entitled to
make pragmatic adjustments which may be
necessary to maintain standard of education or in
a given situation to enhance the standard of
education. Therefore, the Constitutional Courts
cannot be expected to presume that the Ordinance
setting up a particular method of evaluation is
unconstitutional nor the Courts can substitute
their own opinion as against an expert’s opinion
which is ratified by a competent authority.
29. If the significant details referred to in
the preceding paragraphs are taken into
consideration, the petitioners have failed to make
out a case indicating on what grounds the
Ordinance stands vitiated. The Apex Court in
catena of judgments has held that the Court4
W.P.No.9619/2021 | 2021:KHC:43614
– 37 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024cannot usurp or abdicate the parameters of
judicial review and the parameters of judicial
review must be clearly defined and acceded.
30. The Apex Court in Basavaiah(Dr.)
.vs. Dr.H.L. Ramesh(2010) 8 SCC 372 has held
as follows:-
“28. The scope of interference in
academic matters has been examined by the
Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah
(Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640, the Court held as
under:-
“38. We have dealt with the aforesaid
judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal
position that in the academic matters, the
courts have a very limited role particularly
when no mala fides have been alleged
against the experts constituting the Selection
Committee. It would normally be prudent,
wholesome and safe for the courts to leave
the decisions to the academicians and
experts. As a matter of principle, the courts
should never make an endeavour to sit in
appeal over the decisions of the experts. The
courts must realise and appreciate its
constraints and limitations in academic
matters.”
The Supreme Court in another judgment
reported as University Grants Commission vs.
Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519, held
that in academic matters, unless there is a clear
violation of statutory provisions, the regulations
or the notification issued, the Courts shall keep
their hands off since those issues fall within the
domain of the experts of the Court. The Apex
Court has held as under:
“31. We are of the view that, in
academic matters, unless there is a clear
violation of statutory provisions, the
regulations or the notification issued, the
courts shall keep their hands off since those
issues fall within the domain of the experts.
This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D.
– 38 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491; Tariq Islam
v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCC
546; and, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary
Devi Lal University (2008) 9 SCC 284, has
taken the view that the court shall not
generally sit in appeal over the HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT
INDORE Writ Petition No.9729 of 2018 Writ
Petition No.12147 of 2018 Writ Petition
No.12218 of 2018 Writ Petition No.12403 of
2018 opinion expressed by the expert
academic bodies and normally it is wise and
safe for the courts to leave the decision of
the academic experts who are more familiar
with the problem they face, than the courts
generally are. UGC as an expert body has
been entrusted with the duty to take steps
as it may think fit for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in the university.
For attaining the said standards, it is open
to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”,
which has a rational nexus to the object to
be achieved, that is, for maintenance of
standards of teaching, examination and
research. The candidates declared eligible
for Lectureship may be considered for
appointment as Assistant Professors in
universities and colleges and the standard
of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus
with the maintenance of standards of
education to be imparted to the students of
the universities and colleges. UGC has only
implemented the opinion of the experts by
laying down the qualifying criteria, which
cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or
discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.”
The Apex Court in All India Council for
Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar
Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726, has
held as under:
“16.The courts are neither equipped
nor have the academic or technical
– 39 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024background to substitute themselves in
place of statutory professional technical
bodies and take decisions in academic
matters involving standards and quality of
technical education. If the courts start
entertaining petitions from individual
institutions or students to permit courses of
their choice, either for their convenience or
to alleviate hardship or to provide better
opportunities, or because they think that
one course is equal to another, without
realizing the repercussions on the field of
technical education in general, it will lead to
chaos in education and deterioration in
standards of education.
17.The role of statutory expert bodies
on education and role of courts are well
defined by a simple rule. If it is a question
of educational policy or an issue involving
academic matter, the courts keep their
hands off. If any provision of law or
principle of law has to be interpreted,
applied or enforced, with reference to or
connected with education, the courts will
step in.
Further, at Paragraphs 26 to 27 has
observed thus:
“26. This Court also repeatedly held
that courts are not concerned with the
practicality or wisdom of the policies but
only illegality. In Directorate of Film
Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain this court
held: [(2007) 4 SCC 737, para 16] 33 “16]
“16….Courts do not and cannot act as
appellate authorities examining the
correctness, suitability and appropriateness
of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the
executive is entitled to formulate. The scope
of judicial review when examining a policy
of the Government is to check whether it
violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of
– 40 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024the Constitution, or opposed to any
statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary.
Courts cannot interfere with policy either on
the ground that it is erroneous or on the
ground that a better, fairer or wiser
alternative is available. Legality of the
policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of
the policy, is the subject of judicial review…”
27. Thus, the process of evaluation,
the process of ranking and selection of
candidates for admission with reference to
their performance, the process of achieving
the objective of selecting candidates who
will be better equipped to suit the
specialized courses, are all technical matters
in academic field and courts will not
interfere in such processes. Courts will
interfere only if they find all or any of the
following: (i) violation of any enactment,
statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) mala
fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable
private gain to someone or cause prejudice
to anyone; or where the procedure adopted
is arbitrary and capricious.”
31. If the Committee of a Academic
Council and the Syndicate of the respondent-
University have acted in a fair manner and if the
Ordinance is free from the taint of
unreasonableness, there is no scope for judicial
review. Policy 34 decisions in the matters
affecting the policies and administration relating
to medical courses should be rather left to the
wisdom of experts formulating the policies
relating to maintaining standard of education in
the field of medicine. The present Ordinance
under challenge thoroughly contains an academic
element and therefore, this Court cannot
encroach upon and test the wisdom of experts
and also encroach into the inherent jurisdiction of
experts body who are vested with power to
revive, revamp the policies relating to the
academics.
– 41 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
32. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Kerala .vs. N.M.Thomas reported in (1976) 2
SCC 310 has held that discretion is the essence
of classification. Equality is violated if it rests on
unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has
an inherent limitation arising from the very
nature of constitutional guarantee. Those who
are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal
treatment. The doctrine of equality founded
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is
amongst equals. Classification is, therefore to be
founded 35 on substantial differences which
distinguishes persons grouped together from
those left out of the groups and such differential
attributes must bear a just and rational relation
to the object sought to be achieved. This equality
of opportunity cannot be confused by equating
different class of groups. In the present case on
hand, the petitioners are insisting that the
respondent-University should also adopt four
valuation system to the Undergraduates. This
Court is unable to understand as to how the
policies which are formulated to conduct exams
in respect of PG students can be adopted to the
UG students also. There is no discrimination
among equals as PG students constitute a totally
different class and the magnitude of the students
pursuing UG course cannot be compared to those
pursuing PG course. Therefore, the policy in
regard to evaluation of answer scripts of UG
students would stand on totally different footing.
This Court is unable to understand as to how the
petitioners who have failed in subjects can
question the Ordinance and also suggest as to
how the evaluation of 36 the papers has to be
conducted by the respondent-University. Any
indulgence by this Court in this regard would only
lead to catastrophe and would lead to
compromise to standards in medical education.
33. This Court is also not inclined to
entertain the claim made by the students as to
how the deviation valuation is to be adopted. The
petitioners claim that while determining
deviation, the respondent-University should take
into consideration the difference in award of
– 42 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
marks between two valuations and not difference
in award of marks between two valuators as
against maximum marks prescribed for the
paper. I am unable to understand as to how the
petitioners can insist that the deviation valuation
has to be done in a particular manner when more
particularly the Committee of Academic
CouncilAcademic Council, the Syndicate and also
the Advisory Board of Medical Council of India
have approved the method of double valuation
system and also have approved the deviation
valuation.
34. The medical students are placed at a
higher pedestal on account of their crucial role in
the health care system of the society. Therefore,
the students who are pursuing medicine have to
maintain high academic integrity. Medical
students have to work hard and earn their
degrees in a fair and honest way by putting in
the hours to study and complete assignments.
Then only the students can gain the good worth
of medical education and would contribute a lot
to the health care system of the society.
Maintaining academic integrity while earning a
medical degree represents true academic
accomplishments. It is this credibility and work
ethics which would take a medical doctor a long
way at his work place and at the end of the day it
is the patient who would benefit. Therefore,
medical students cannot insist for lowering the
education standards and therefore, the challenge
to the impugned Ordinance has to fail.”
9.10. By placing reliance on Vishweshwara C’s
case, his submission is that writ courts cannot
form their own opinion against an ordinance
passed by educational institutions effectuated
by a team of experts ratified by the competent
– 43 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
authority, in the background of there existing
no mala fides against the expert committee,
and in that regard ought not to interfere in
matters relating to academia unless a policy or
act is illegal in the eyes of law.
9.11. He also relies on the order dated 28-10-2022
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Ms. Chandana B. Vs. Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences5 more
particularly paras 15 to 20 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“15. That apart, it is well settled principle in
law that the judicial review in respect of the
educational matters is limited and this Court,
though has extraordinary writ remedies
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
shall be restrained from interfering with the
affairs of conducting the examination, valuation,
scrutiny of answer-scripts by the examiners,
etc. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the
observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of VIKESH KUMAR GUPTA AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND
OTHERS reported in (2021)2 SCC 309, wherein
at paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment, it is
observed thus:
5
W.P.No.12989/2022 | 2022:KHC:36255
– 44 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024“14. Though re-evaluation can
be directed if rules permit, this Court
has deprecated the practice of re-
evaluation and scrutiny of the
questions by the courts which lack
expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to
examine the question papers and
answer sheets itself, particularly when
the Commission has assessed the inter
se merit of the candidates (Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission v.
Mukesh Thakur & Anr.) Courts have to
show deference and consideration to
the recommendation of the Expert
Committee who have the expertise to
evaluate and make recommendations
[see-Basavaiah(Dr.) v. H.L. Ramesh &
Ors.). Examining the scope of judicial
review with regards to re- evaluation
of answer sheets, this Court in Ran
Vijay Singh &Ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh &Ors. held that court should
not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of a candidate as it has
no expertise in the matters and the
academic matters are best left to
academics. This Court in the said
judgment further held as follows:
“31. On our part we may add that
sympathy or compassion does not play
any role in the matter of directing or
not directing re-evaluation of an
answer sheet. If an error is committed
by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers.
The entire examination process does
not deserve to be derailed only
because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive
some injustice having been caused to
them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates
suffer equally, though some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped
– 45 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024since mathematical precision is not
always possible. This Court has shown
one way out of an impasse — exclude
the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that
despite several decisions of this Court,
some of which have been discussed
above, there is interference by the
courts in the result of examinations.
This places the examination authorities
in an unenviable position where they
are under scrutiny and not the
candidates. Additionally, a massive
and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of
uncertainty. While there is no doubt
that candidates put in a tremendous
effort in preparing for an examination,
it must not be forgotten that even the
examination authorities put in equally
great efforts to successfully conduct an
examination. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later
stage, but the court must consider the
internal checks and balances put in
place by the examination authorities
before interfering with the efforts put
in by the candidates who have
successfully participated in the
examination and the examination
authorities. The present appeals are a
classic example of the consequence of
such interference where there is no
finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of
eight years. Apart from the
examination authorities even the
candidates are left wondering about
the certainty or otherwise of the result
of the examination — whether they
have passed or not; whether their
result will be approved or
disapproved by the court; whether
they will get admission in a college or
university or not; and whether they
– 46 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024will get recruited or not. This
unsatisfactory situation does not work
to anybody’s advantage and such a
state of uncertainty results in
confusion being worse confounded.
The overall and larger impact of all this
is that public interest suffers.”
15. In view of the above law laid down
by this Court, it was not open to the
Division Bench to have examined the
correctness of the questions and the
answer key to come to a conclusion
different from that of the Expert
Committee in its judgment dated
12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by
the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission &
Ors. In the said judgment, this Court
interfered with the selection process
only after obtaining the opinion of an
expert committee but did not enter
into the correctness of the questions
and answers by itself. Therefore, the
said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case.
16. A perusal of the above judgments
would make it clear that courts should
be very slow in interfering with expert
opinion in academic matters. In any
event, assessment of the questions by
the courts itself to arrive at correct
answers is not permissible. The delay
in finalization of appointments to public
posts is mainly caused due to
pendency of cases challenging
selections pending in courts for a long
period of time. The cascading effect of
delay in appointments is the
continuance of those appointed on
temporary basis and their claims for
regularization. The other consequence
resulting from delayed appointments
to public posts is the serious damage
– 47 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
caused to administration due to lack of
sufficient personnel.”
16. It is also useful to refer to the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BIHAR
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS v.
ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in (2020)6
SCC 362, wherein at paragraphs 23 and 26 of the
judgment, it is observed thus:
“23. This court reiterates that
the scope of judicial review
under Article 226 in matters
concerning evaluation of candidates-
particularly, for purpose of recruitment
to public services is narrow. The
previous decisions of the court have
constantly underscored that in the
absence of any provision for re-
evaluation of answer sheets, judicial
review should be rarely exercised –
preferably under exceptional
circumstances. A three judge Bench of
this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava
(supra) held as follows:
“Under the relevant rules of the
Commission, there is no provision
wherein a candidate may be entitled to
ask for re- evaluation of his answer-
book. There is a provision for scrutiny
only wherein the answer-books are
seen for the purpose of checking
whether all the answers given by a
candidate have been examined and
whether there has been any mistake in
the totalling of marks of each question
and noting them correctly on the first
cover page of the answer-book. There
is no dispute that after scrutiny no
mistake was found in the marks
awarded to the appellant in the
General Science paper. In the absence
of any provision for re-evaluation of
answer-books in the relevant rules, no
candidate in an examination has got
– 48 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024any right whatsoever to claim or ask
for re- evaluation of his marks.”
26. Given the clear declaration
of law in the judgments of this court,
we are of the opinion that the
unilateral exercise of re- valuation
undertaken by the High Court (both by
the single judge and the Division
Bench) has not solved, but rather
contributed to the chaos. No rule or
regulation was shown by any party
during the hearing, which justified the
approach that was adopted. The BSSC,
in our opinion, acted correctly in the
first instance, in referring the answers
to a panel of experts. If there were
justifiable doubts about the
recommendations of that panel, the
least that should have been done, was
to require the BSSC to refer the
disputed or doubtful questions to
another expert panel. That was not
done; the “corrections” indicated by
the single judge were accepted by the
BSSC; several candidates who made it
to the select list freshly drawn up
pursuant to his directions, were
appointed. The Division Bench,
thereafter undertook the entire
exercise afresh, compounding the
matter further by not referring the
disputed questions to any panel of
experts. We are left reiterating the
lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the
High Court’s interference has not
resulted in finality “to the result of the
examinations” despite a long lapse of
time. There is an air of uncertainty
about the entire selection – nay, the
entire cadre, because the inter se
seniority of selected (and appointed)
candidates is in a state of flux.”
17. In the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
– 49 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
OTHERS reported in (2018)2 SCC 357, at
paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment, it is
observed thus:
“30. The law on the subject is
therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination
permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as
a matter of right, then the authority
conducting the examination may
permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination
does not permit re-evaluation or
scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct
from prohibiting it) then the Court may
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if
it is demonstrated very clearly, without
any “inferential process of reasoning or
by a process of rationalisation” and
only in rare or exceptional cases that a
material error has been committed;
30.3. The Court should not at all
re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer
sheets of a candidate – it has no
expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The Court should presume
the correctness of the key answers and
proceed on that assumption; and 30.5.
In the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the examination authority
rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add
that sympathy or compassion does not
play any role in the matter of directing
or not directing re-evaluation of an
answer sheet. If an error is committed
– 50 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers.
The entire examination process does
not deserve to be derailed only
because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive
some injustice having been caused to
them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates
suffer equally, though some might
suffer more but that cannot be helped
since mathematical precision is not
always possible. This Court has shown
one way out of an impasse – exclude
the suspect or offending question.”
18. It is also notable to extract the law
declared by this Court in the case of MOAZAM
SHAH KHAN AND OTHERS v. VICE- CHANCELLOR,
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2022 KAR 1146, has
observed thus:
“6. That leaves me with the only
other question, namely, whether the
Ordinance providing for double
valuation suffer from any arbitrariness
or irrationality? My answer to the same
is also in the negative. The University
is entitled to determine how the
answer scripts for any given
examination should be evaluated and
by how many examiners. It may
consider evaluation only by one
examiner to be sufficient and even in
such a case it may not provide for
revaluation of the scripts. The students
cannot in such a situation claim any
inherent right for revaluation of the
scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the
evaluation made by a single examiner
would also be binding on the student.
The University may also provide for
revaluation and recognise that the
evaluation by an examiner may in
certain situations be subjective or
– 51 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024erratic. It may adopt a third approach
as has been done by the University in
the instant case. It may instead of one
examiner conducting the evaluation
and the papers being sent for
revaluation, provide for evaluation of
the answer scripts by two examiners
and take the average of the two, as
the marks awarded to the candidate.
Any such scheme would take care of
situations where the marking of the
scripts may be alleged to be subjective
or erratic. There is no gain said that
the element of error in human
judgment is considerably lower in
cases where the scripts are marked by
two examiners independently. Two
heads are certainly better than one,
given regard to the fact that both have
the basic qualifications prescribed for
acting as examiners. The fact that
double valuation causes any prejudice
or that it introduces an element of
irrationality in the process of
evaluation of the scripts or that the
candidates must even after a double
valuation be given the right to seek a
further valuation by a third examiner
has therefore to be rejected. So also
the submission that the valuation by
one examiner followed by revaluation
of another will make any improvement
in the situation, must fail for
qualitatively there is no difference
between a situation where a single
examiner evaluates the scripts first
followed by a revaluation of the same,
and situation in which two examiners
independently evaluate the scripts and
the average of the two is awarded to
the candidate.”
(underlining emphasised)
19. Applying the aforementioned declaration
of law by this Court, as well as by the Hon’ble
– 52 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
Supreme Court to the case on hand, Ordinance of
2012 is applicable to the case of the petitioners
seeking revaluation by a third examiner or a fifth
examiner, as the case may be, in view of Definition
2(ii) of the Ordinance dated 15th June, 2012
specifically providing for students whose difference
of marks between the first and second examiner is
≥15% or ≥10% in respect of Under-graduate and
Post-graduate courses respectively. In view of my
opinion supra, if the difference in total marks
between First and Second examiner is ≥15% or
≥10%, such answer-scripts shall be revaluated by
a Third or Fifth examiner as the respondent-
University’s Ordinance provides for third
valuation/Third examiner in view of difference of
≥15% or ≥10% between the First and Second
examiner. I also find force in the submission made
by Sri D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent-University, that the
total marks obtained by the student is to be taken
into consideration while referring to the third
examiner for revaluation, as the intention of Policy
makers or Syndicate of the respondent-University is
clear and unambiguous to consider total marks of
two examiners and not the individual marks in a
specific question of the answer-script, and on this
count also, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
20. Insofar as the argument advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
respect of descriptive/subjective type of questions,
it is needless to say that this Court, in the case of
MENAKA MOHAN AND OTHERS (supra), has
elaborately considered the requirement of the key
answers and has accordingly directed the
respondent-University. In that view of the matter,
no further orders are required to be made in these
writ petitions. In the result, writ petitions are liable
to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed.”
9.12. By relying on Ms. Chandana B‘s case, he
submits that the scope of interference of writ
– 53 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
courts under the Article 226 jurisdiction is very
narrow in matters relating to the conducting of
examination, valuation or scrutiny of answer
scripts by the examiners unless there is a
patent lack of rationality and reasoning. The
impugned ordinance governing the valuation
procedures of the examinees is out of the scope
of this court to adjudicate upon and thus the
ordinance cannot be interfered with at the
hands of this Court.
9.13. Insofar as the corrigendum having been
approved by the Vice-Chancellor and the
Registrar without approval of the CAC, AC and
Syndicate, he submits that in the agenda for
the meeting of the CAC to be held on 21-02-
2019, as per note 17, it is clearly stated that
the Ordinances Governing valuations of UG and
PG were to be considered.
– 54 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
9.14. It is only by oversight that in the minutes of the
CAC meeting, PG Ordinance was not
mentioned, though discussions and
deliberations were held in relation thereto. This
having been noticed, when the draft of the
minutes of the meeting was placed for
approval, changes were effected, and on the
same day, corrigendum was issued.
9.15. Similarly, the omission of the word PG was also
noticed when the draft of the minutes of
meeting of Syndicate was placed for approval,
and immediately on the very same day, on 23-
03-2019, a Corrigendum was issued.
9.16. The responsible officers like the Vice-Chancellor
and the Registrar, having observed the
inadvertent omission, have taken necessary
action. The AC holding meeting twice in a year,
first in the month of May-June and second in
the month of October-November, in the first
– 55 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
meeting held on 17-06-2019 for the year 2019,
the Agenda Subject No.1 discloses that
notifications were issued based on decision of
the Syndicate, on recommendation of the
Committee of Academic Council as approved by
the Academic Council., Clause No.13, the
subject refers to Ordinance Governing Valuation
of answer scripts of PG and UG, these were
placed for ratification and were so ratified by
the Academic Council.
9.17. As such, no case can be made out on the basis
of the alleged corrigendum being issued,
subsequently, the ordinances being in force
acted upon and approved by the AC and
Syndicate from the year 2019, only because the
petitioner has failed in a subject, the ordinance
cannot be questioned.
9.18. From the year 2019, thousands of students
have been evaluated as per the ordinances of
– 56 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
both the UG and PG. If the said ordinances
were now, on the basis of an improbable
argument of the petitioner, be considered not
to be enforceable, the valuations done of all the
PG students from 2019 till date, would have to
be set aside. The petitioner is trying to make a
mountain out of a molehill on a technicality of a
corrigendum being issued.
9.19. The corrigendum, though signed by the Vice-
Chancellor and Registrar, has been approved by
the AC and Syndicate. The petitioner has also
been evaluated under the Ordinance of the year
2019 pertaining to PG, and as such, the
petitioner cannot question the same.
9.20. When the ordinance holds the field, the
question of the marks allotted by the fifth
evaluator prevailing over the marks allotted by
the other evaluators would not arise. The
ordinance providing for average of the four top
– 57 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
evaluations, it is the ordinance which would
apply and every student is bound by it. There
cannot be a separate mechanism developed for
the petitioner to enable the petitioner to pass
the subject in which he has failed.
9.21. Insofar as the discrepancy in the evaluation of
the practical’s and theory, he submits that the
very same argument would advance the
transparency of the University inasmuch as
when the petitioner has done well in the
practicals, he has been awarded more marks.
When the petitioner has not done well in
theory, he has been awarded less marks.
9.22. The action of awarding of such marks being
proper and correct, being done properly and as
per the ordinance, there being transparency in
the procedure adopted, the petitioner cannot
challenge the same in the manner so done. The
methodology provided under the ordinance
– 58 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
cannot be changed for the petitioner to now be
awarded the highest marks awarded by the 5th
valuer.
9.23. He submits that it could happen that the 5th
valuer could have awarded lesser marks. In
that event, the student’s interest would suffer if
the lesser marks is awarded. As such, it is the
top four evaluations which are taken into
consideration while computing the results, thus
providing better chances to the student.
9.24. The question paper and answers being
subjective in nature, there’s always a possibility
of a slight difference in the marks awarded by
different valuers. That is why a system of
averaging the marks has been adopted by the
University. All these being for the benefit of the
students and furthering the possibility of the
student being awarded the right marks, the
petition seeking for a different mechanism
– 59 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
cannot be accepted and is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Heard Sri. Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Madhusudhana R. Nayak, Learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent University and
perused the papers.
11. The points that would arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the impugned ordinance was
passed in contravention to sub-section 3
of section 5 of the RGUHS Act, 1994?
ii. Does the Vice-Chancellor or Registrar have
the power to sign & issue a corrigenda
without the approval of the Academic
Council or the Committee of Academic
Council and the Syndicate?
iii. Whether the decision taken by the
Academic Council in the meeting dated
17.06.2019 be regarded as done without
the necessary application of mind?
iv. Whether the impugned ordinance could be
regarded as being manifestly arbitrary?
v. Whether the 15% difference in the
evaluation of the petitioner’s answer
sheets be construed as manifestly
arbitrary in practice?
– 60 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
vi. Would the assistance of a model answer
key/paper be necessary in the background
of evaluation for a post-graduate degree,
and would the lack thereof have
prejudiced the petitioner herein?
vii. What Order?
12. I answer the above points as under:
13. Answer to Point No. (i):- Whether the
impugned ordinance was passed in
contravention to sub-section 3 of section 5 of
the RGUHS Act, 1994?
13.1. Section 35 of the RGUHS Act is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“35. Ordinances.
(1)The Syndicate may, from time to time, make
Ordinances and amend or repeal the same.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act and the
Statutes, the Ordinance may provide for the following
matters, namely:-
(a) admission of the students to the University and its
affiliated colleges and the levy of fees for
admission to the University, colleges and
University laboratories;
(b) courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and
other academic distinctions of the University;
(c) conditions under which students shall be admitted
to the courses of study leading to degrees,
diplomas and other academic distinctions of the
University;
– 61 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
(d) conduct of examinations of the University and the
conditions under which students shall be admitted
to such examinations;
(e) manner in which exemption relating to admission
of students to examination may be given;
(f) conditions, mode of appointment and duties of
examining bodies and examiners;
(g) maintenance of discipline among students;
(h) fees to be charged for various courses of study,
research, experiment and practical training and for
admission to various university examinations;
(i) all other matters which by this Act or by the
Statutes are to be or may be provided by the
Ordinances.
(3) In making an Ordinance the Syndicate shall
consult,-
(a) the Boards of Studies in matters relating to
the appointment and duties of examiners;
and
(b) the Academic Council in matter relating to
conduct or standard of examination or
conditions of residence of students.
(4)Every Ordinance made by the Syndicate shall
have effect from such date as the Syndicate may
specify, and every Ordinance so made shall be
submitted to the Chancellor and the senate for
information.”
13.2. Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS
Act deals with the making of an ordinance.
13.3. The ordinance making power being vested
with the Syndicate. The Syndicate is required
– 62 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
to consult the Board of Studies in matters
relating to the appointment and duties of
examiners. The Syndicate would have to
consult the Academic Council in matters
relating to conduct or standard of examination
or conditions of residence of students.
13.4. In the present matter, we are not dealing with
the appointment and duties of examiners.
Therefore, the consultation of the Board of
Studies would not arise.
13.5. The present matter relating to conduct or
standard of examination in terms of the marks
to be secured and the requirements to pass
the exam. The Syndicate before making the
ordinance is required to consult the Academic
Council.
13.6. The submission of Shri Nitin Ramesh, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in the present
matter, it is the CAC, who is a committee
– 63 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
appointed which has considered the matter
and made a recommendation. This
recommendation has been blindly followed by
the Academic Council by granting approval,
the minutes of the meeting of the AC does not
indicate any particular discussion as regards
the recommendation made by the CAC.
13.7. The approval of the AC having been placed
before the Syndicate. The Syndicate has also
issued the approval for issuance of ordinance.
Thus, his submission is that there is no
consultation, let alone effective consultation,
which has occurred blindly following what has
been recommended by the CAC and approved
by the AC would not constitute consultation on
part of the Syndicate for issuance of the
ordinance.
13.8. This submission would have to be now tested
by the records, which have been produced.
– 64 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
There is no dispute as regards the CAC having
considered the matter in detail and
recommendation for issuance of ordinance.
13.9. In its meeting held on 21.02.2019, the same
being reflected in Agenda No.17. Agenda
No.17 deals with the ordinance that governs
valuations of UG and PG courses. The drafts of
both the ordinances were also annexed along
with the meeting. The Agenda for the meeting
of the Academic Council to be held on
17.06.2019 had been issued on 11.06.2019.
13.10. The Academic Council, in the meeting held on
17.06.2019, approved the recommendation of
the CAC Academic Council by approving the
ordinance governing Post Graduation and
Diploma including super speciality evaluation
as also the ordinance governing Post
Graduation including Diploma and super
speciality evaluation as also ordinance
– 65 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
governed Under Graduation valuation. These
ordinances were placed for approval before the
Syndicate, which considered the same in its
140th Meeting held on 27.02.2019 and
approved both the aforesaid ordinances. In
pursuance thereof, on 01.03.2019, the
ordinances came into effect and operation. It
is only now that the petitioner challenges the
recommendation made by the CAC, approval
by the AC and the subsequent approval by the
Syndicate.
13.11. The only contention of the petitioner is that
there is no effective consultation and or
consultation by the Syndicate with the
Academic Council as required under Clause (b)
of Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the RGUHS
Act as indicated supra.
13.12. From the records, it is found that the
committee of the Academic Council had
– 66 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
considered all the aspects, a draft of the
ordinances had been prepared. They were
placed for discussion and approval before the
Academic Council. The Academic Council,
having gone through the same has approved
it. This approval can also be governed in the
manner in which the minutes have been
recorded, inasmuch as for some of the agenda
items, there are comments of the Academic
Council, which have been recorded and
directions of the Academic Council to the Vice-
Chancellor and or the Registrar, which have
been recorded. Thus, indicating that there is
considerable application of mind on part of the
Academic Council as regards the various items
which had been brought before the Academic
Council. The decision of the Academic Council
is not a judicial order or a quasi-judicial order,
requiring detailed reasons to be recorded.
– 67 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
13.13. The Academic Council is not required to give
reasons for acceptance or rejection of a
recommendation of the CAC. Though, it may
be advisable that some of these discussions
are recorded in the minutes in detail, in law
they are not necessary to be so recorded. The
fact remains that the Academic Council has
approved the recommendation of the CAC.
This recommendation of the Academic Council
was placed before the Syndicate, which
approved the same. The resolution of the
Syndicate does not contain reasons for
approval of what was placed before the
Syndicate.
13.14. A perusal of the minutes of the Syndicate
would also indicate that there are certain
directions and observations made by the
Syndicate for certain matters. Merely because
the word ‘approved’ has been used insofar as
– 68 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
this ordinance is concerned, would not mean
that there is no deliberation or application of
mind by the Syndicate.
13.15. Insofar as consultation per se is concerned, it
is if there were any doubts as regards the
recommendation, made by the AC would a
necessity arise to have a discussion or a
consultation between the Syndicate and the
Academic Council. The Syndicate having
accepted the recommendation made by the
Academic Council in toto, there being no
change. I am of the considered opinion that
there was no further requirement of any
consultation or discussion between the
Syndicate and the Academic Council.
13.16. Thus, I answer point No (i) by saying that
the recommendation of the CAC having
been placed before the AC, the AC having
– 69 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
approved the ordinances and the same
being placed before the Syndicate. The
Syndicate having approved the
ordinances, there is no contravention of
Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the
RGUHS Act, 1994.
14. Answer to Point No.(ii):-Does the Vice-
Chancellor or Registrar have the power to sign
& issue a corrigenda without the approval of
the Academic Council or the Committee of
Academic Council and the Syndicate?
14.1. The CAC having deliberated and approved the
ordinance for both Under Graduate and Post-
Graduate courses. It is on that basis that the
matter was placed before the AC. The AC
having approved the recommendation of the
CAC, would imply that it is both the UG and PG
ordinance, which had been approved by the
AC.
– 70 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
14.2. Subsequently, it was placed before the
Syndicate, who had approved the same on
23.03.2019. When the drafts were being
finalized, the Vice-Chancellor and the
Registrar having realized the omission of the
words ‘Post Graduate’ (PG) in the minutes and
had prepared a corrigendum, which had been
approved by the CAC, AC and the Syndicate
and it is in that background that the
ordinances were issued for both the courses,
and the ordinances have been enforced from
the year 2019.
14.3. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar being
officers of the University discharge an
executive function and are not policy makers
per se. All the policy decisions as indicated
above, would have to be recommended by the
CAC, approved by the AC, and thereafter
approved by the Syndicate. Thus, any change
– 71 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
in the policy is required to be carried out in
the very same manner. The Vice-Chancellor or
the Registrar by themselves would not have
any power to make any change in the policy
by issuance of a corrigenda or otherwise.
14.4. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the
Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar has/have no
power to sign or issue corrigenda without the
recommendation of the Committee of
Academic Council, approved by the Academic
Council and thereafter approved by the
Syndicate. In this case, the agenda
recommended by the CAC was as regards both
Undergraduate and Postgraduate examination,
which came to be approved by the Academic
Council and thereafter by the Syndicate.
14.5. The correction by way of corrigenda has also
been approved in a similar manner, has also
followed the same process, the same having
– 72 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
been recommended by the CAC, approved by
the AC and thereafter approved by the
Syndicate and thereafter implemented by the
University from the year 2019. As such, there
is no infirmity in the corrigenda and or the
manner in which the corrigenda has been
issued.
14.6. The arguments of Mr. Nithin Ramesh cannot
be accepted for one more reason, the PG
Ordinance has been in force from the year
2019 and several exams having been held, if
the corrigendum had not been approved by
the CAC then the AC and thereafter the
Syndicate, they would have raised an
objection in relation thereto over the last 5
years, the same not having been done it is
clear that they have approved and ratified the
corrigendum.
– 73 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
14.7. Thus, I answer Point No. (ii) by holding
that the Vice-Chancellor or Registrar do
not have the power to sign & issue a
corrigenda without the approval of the
Academic Council or the Committee of
Academic Council and the Syndicate. In
this case the corrigenda has been
approved by the Committee of Academic
Council and thereafter by the Academic
Council and then by the Syndicate as such
no fault can be found.
15. Answer to Point No. (iii):-Whether the decision
taken by the Academic Council in the meeting
dated 17.06.2019 be regarded as done without
the necessary application of mind?
15.1. The contention of Shri. Nitin Ramesh is similar
to that addressed as regards the earlier two
points. Inasmuch as the contention is that the
AC has only approved the recommendation of
the CAC and there is no application of mind.
– 74 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
The documents disclosed the recommendation
made by the CAC and approval made by the
AC. Though, this approval could have been
more detailed.
15.2. I am of the considered opinion that the
Academic Council consisting of more than 50
members, the agenda and the supporting
documents have been sent to each of the
members before the date of the meeting. The
same would imply that the members have
gone through the said materials and have
approved the same in the meeting. It is not
necessary that all discussions are recorded in
the minutes of the meeting. It is only if there
is any difference of opinion or if there is any
particular recommendation or suggestion,
which would be required to be separately
recorded.
– 75 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
15.3. If it requires somebody to take any action,
then the same will be recorded in the minutes.
The minutes cannot be read figuratively to
indicate every minute of the meeting to be
recorded. It is only the broader aspects which
would be recorded especially in meetings like
that of a high-powered Academic Council or
the Syndicate. The members of the AC, being
high dignitaries having expertise in their
respective fields, have unanimously approved
the ordinances.
15.4. This being so, I am of the considered opinion
that mainly because there are no reasons
recorded in writing, would by itself not amount
to non-application of mind. The Academic
Council having approved the ordinances
without making any observations and or
issuing any further directions would indicate
an application of mind and approval of the
– 76 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
ordinance in toto, more so when the Academic
Council is dealing with these kinds of matters
on a day to day basis and is aware of the
intricacies and the nuances of matters
relating to the evaluation, conduct and
standards of examination etc.
15.5. Thus I answer to Point No. (iii) by holding
that the decision taken by the AC in the
meeting dated 17.06.2019 cannot be one
which can be said to have been taken
without the necessary application of
mind.
16. Answer to Point No. (iv):-Whether the
impugned ordinance could be regarded as being
manifestly arbitrary?
16.1. The contention of learned counsel Sri. Nitin
Ramesh appearing for the petitioner is that the
ordinance providing for 4 evaluations and in
the event of there being a deviation of 15% in
the marking, the answer script being
– 77 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
recommended to the 5th evaluator, the
answer script being required to be referred to
the 5th evaluator, the averaging of 4 top
evaluations is manifestly arbitrary.
16.2. The submission in this regard is that the
answer script having been referred to a more
senior person designated as the 5th evaluator,
it is the evaluation made by the 5th evaluator,
which has to be taken into consideration and
in this case, if so done, the petitioner is to be
declared as passed and as such, this Court is
required to pass an order, which is student
friendly especially to that of the petitioner.
16.3. The validity of the ordinance as indicated
above has been upheld, the ordinance
provides for four evaluations and if there is a
deviation of 15% of marks between any two
evaluators, the same could be referred to a 5th
evaluator.
– 78 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
16.4. If the argument of learned counsel Shri. Nitin
Ramesh were to be accepted and it is only the
evaluation of the 5th evaluator, which is to be
taken into consideration. Then in the event of
5th evaluator giving lesser marks, the student
would have failed. Of course, if the 5th
evaluator has given higher marks, the student
having more than passing marks, the student
would have passed.
16.5. The examination, which is the subject matter
of the present petition is for Post Graduation
students including Diploma and super
speciality evaluations for Medical, Dental,
Ayush, Physiotherapy, Nursing, Pharmacy,
Health Sciences, Yoga and Naturopathy, thus
as rightly pointed out by Shri Madhusudhan R.
Naik, learned Senior Counsel is that the
questions are theoretical/subjective in nature,
the answers are required to be given in detail.
– 79 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
16.6. The evaluation not being an exact science,
there is a possibility of one evaluator differing
from the other in awarding different marks. It
is in that background that he has submitted
that the number of evaluators being more and
the averaging of marks, allotted by such
evaluators is beneficial for the students. Since
the student would get the average of the
highest marks awarded by different
evaluators, thereby increasing the chances of
being successful in the examination. I am in
agreement with the submission made by Shri
Madhusudhana R. Naik, learned Senior
Counsel.
16.7. In fact, if it was only the marks awarded by
one evaluator, that is the Evaluator No. V were
to be taken into consideration, then the same
would have turned out to be manifestly
– 80 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
arbitrary after the answer script having been
evaluated by four other evaluators previously.
16.8. The whole purpose of having multiple
evaluators as indicated above is to see that
the student gets the benefit of doubt. He is to
see that the process of examination is
conducted in such a manner that no student
gets an undue benefit in the evaluation
process.. If there is an undue disadvantage,
four evaluators having applied their mind, the
top three evaluations being taken into account
would normally be in the interest of both the
education system and the student. If there is a
deviation of 15% as indicated above, a 5th
evaluator being appointed, it is the top four
marks of all the five evaluators which is taken
into consideration. This again, in my
considered opinion averages out any
discrepancies between different evaluators and
– 81 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
the averaging of the top four evaluations
would be beneficial for the student.
16.9. Inasmuch as by taking into account the top
four evaluations, the lowest evaluation is
already excluded. Such being the case, I do
not agree with the submission made by Sri.
Nitin Ramesh that the ordinance is manifestly
arbitrary on account of the above.
16.10. I find the ordinance to be favourable for the
student and also sufficiently strong enough to
support a robust education system. This Court
while considering the matters of education and
marks of the student is not concerned with
passing student-friendly orders, but it is
required to pass orders in accordance with the
applicable law. More so, when it is these
students, who later on go out in life and treat
other human beings for their disease, medical
neccessities or the like, since in the present
– 82 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
matter, all the students governed by the
postgraduate ordinance become doctors of the
human body. This court is required to balance
the immediate needs of the student and that
of the future needs of the patients of those
students on they becoming doctors. It is
therefore required that competent persons
pass the course and treat the patients
properly.
16.11. Hence, I answer Point No. (iv) by holding
that the impugned ordinance is not
manifestly arbitrary but is in consonance
with the applicable law.
17. Answer to Point No. (v):- Whether the 15%
difference in the evaluation of the petitioner’s
answer sheets be construed as manifestly
arbitrary in practice?
17.1. The submission of Shri Nitin Ramesh learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the evaluators
have not been appointed properly. There is no
– 83 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
training for the evaluators, the quality of the
evaluators is not proper and or monitored and
that is the reason why there is a 15%
difference in the evaluation by different
evaluators. Thus, he submits that there is a
manifest arbitrary practice followed by the
evaluators in the evaluation of the papers.
17.2. There is some substance in the submission
made by Shri. Nitin Ramesh, inasmuch as
there cannot be such a difference of evaluation
by the evaluators of the same question and or
of the same answer script. Though the
questions are not multiple-choice questions,
but are theoretical questions requiring detailed
answers and though Medical Science is not an
exact science, but the protocols which are
required to be followed and or used in Medical
Science are more or less common.
– 84 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
17.3. The description and or theory of any particular
medical aspect are also common. The
textbooks relating to that particular subject
also being common. It would be difficult for
any evaluator to value the answer script in
such a manner that the evaluation made by
such an evaluator has a differential of 15% of
the maximum marks of the subject. That is to
say, if the maximum marks of the subject are
not equal to the maximum marks of the
answer script, then the evaluation for a
particular subject is out of 100, if evaluator
number one has given marks of 50, then the
other evaluator, to qualify for the 15%
differential should have given marks of 35
since this 15% differential is being taken into
consideration on the basis of the maximum
marks awarded and not the differential
between two evaluators.
– 85 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
17.4. Thus, if there is such a huge difference of
marks between one evaluator and another
evaluator amounting to 15% of the maximum
marks for the said subject as regards the
valuation of the same answers to the same
questions by different evaluators, I am of the
considered opinion that such a situation would
have to be addressed by the University in a
proper and logical manner.
17.5. Though in the present case on account of the
averaging of four evaluators, the differential of
15% has gone away, that being the lowest
mark, the fact remains that though no
prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In
the present matter, there is a differential of
15% between two evaluators for the same
question and same answer which cannot be
accepted. It would therefore be required for
the University to conduct necessary training
– 86 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
programs as to the manner in which the
evaluation has to be conducted so as to
ensure the sanctity of the examination system
is maintained.
17.6. The evaluators or the University need not be
student friendly. The evaluator only would
have to work on how to value the answer
script in a proper manner and to see to it that
there is uniformity in the marks awarded by
each of the evaluators.
17.7. I answer point No.(v) by holding that the
15% difference in the evaluation of the
answer script of the petitioner by two
different evaluators is manifestly
arbitrary. However, on account of a 5th
evaluator having been appointed and the
lowest marks not being taken into
consideration for averaging the marks of
– 87 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
the petitioner, no prejudice is caused to
the petitioner.
17.8. The university is directed to carry out
necessary training of the evaluators
before being given the work of evaluation
such that they discharge their duties in a
proper manner.
18. Answer to Point No. (vi): Would the assistance
of a model answer key/paper be necessary in
the background of evaluation for a post-
graduate degree, and would the lack thereof
have prejudiced the petitioner herein?
18.1. The submission of Shri. Nitin Ramesh learned
counsel for the petitioner is that if a model
answer paper is provided to the evaluators,
they would be in a better position to evaluate
the papers properly and if such model answer
key or model answer paper is put in a public
domain, the students could also verify from
the answer key if they have answered
– 88 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
properly. This would bring about transparency
in the examination process, make the
examination more robust and the evaluation of
the answer script proper and transparent.
18.2. Shri. Madhusudhan Naik learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the University would
submit that this aspect has already been
considered by the Academic Council in its
meeting held on 10th June, 2024 at Agenda
item No.6.
18.3. The discussion on Agenda Item No. 6 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
6 Any other matter permission to the chair
6(1) Decision regarding offering key Answers/Model Answers
for Descriptive type of questions in Health Science
Courses.
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences is conducting
Theory and Practical Examinations for various courses in
Health Sciences. The format of the question papers is in
accordance with the ordinances of the relevant courses as
per respective Apex Body regulations. Descriptive
questions make up the majority of the exam questions.
There are very few courses that combine descriptive and
multiple-choice questions (MCQs).
As the ‘written questions’ tests higher order cognitive
processes, in a manner that multiple-choice questions
– 89 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
cannot, and consequently have higher validity and as the
Long Essay, Short Essay, Short Answers are considered
to be superior at ‘testing’ higher cognitive levels of
knowledge and has greater validity particularly in the
courses of High Education related to Health Sciences, the
University is conducting its theory examinations with
most of the questions in descriptive written format.
Wherever, the apex body norms prescribe for objective
type of question, the University has implemented MCQ
questions and providing Key Answers for the purpose of
evaluation.
Under RGUHS, there are around 3000+ question paper
codes for different courses. Additionally, the university
will produce a minimum of ten sets of question papers for
each code of the question papers. Furthermore, framing
the model answers for “the descriptive essay type
questions” is challenging, especially in the health science
courses. For this reason, the Key Answers for subjective
type answers in health science course examinations are
not being offered.
At present, University is providing Key Answers for MCQ
questions wherever the MCQ pattern questions are there.
Even for this small segment, University is receiving
queries on the Key Answers referring to various sources
of information/text books. In such situations, there would
be a significant number of queries, if the key answers or
Model answer is implemented for descriptive type of
questions.
However, University is witnessing that many students are
filing writ petition before the Hon’ble Courts seeking Key-
Answers or Model Answers even for Descriptive type of
questions. The university must have a clear stand
regarding the provision of Key-Answers or Model Answers
for questions that are descriptive.
Hence, the subject is placed before the Academic Council
in its meeting to be held on 11.06.2024 for deliberation
and decision regarding providing key answer to
descriptive type of questions in Health Science Courses
being conducted under RGUHS
Academic council constituted by the experts across the
Deliberation different faculties deliberated this issue in length and the
Academic council has discussed as follows:-
1. There is always multiple way of presenting the
knowledge and innovative approaches will be deprived of
– 90 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
marks if we restrict to key answers. The current
assessment pattern with multiple assessors has reduced
the chances of any individual idiosyncrasies of an
examiner influencing the results of a student
2. Keywords are the words and phrases that people use
in search engines/articles to find what they’re looking for.
The keywords for a particular question set by a qualified
expert may not always match with the other experts. The
students themselves may challenge the given keywords
depending on his varied source of knowledge or learning
as stated above. Each student reads from a textbook of
his choice and there are multiple authors. This may lead
to multiple disputes regarding to correctness of the
keywords by both students and faculty.
3. ‘Are we failing the system by passing the students’ is a
concern. If a student presents an answer based on the
most recent knowledge based on journal articles and if
the key answer does not feature it, imagine the loss to
that student. Medicine is an eclectic field with new
knowledge coming in everyday and the shelf life of gold
standards is drastically reducing. If we force key answers
then various sticky issues are expected to stare at, as a
result of formation of specific patterns as explained by
Complex adaptive systems.
4. The students are expected to know about recent
advances and their learning receives inputs from vast and
varied sources such as text books, reference books,
online free learning search engines, journal articles,
newsletters and updates from international health
agencies. The Learning as per the curriculum/syllabus for
health science students is dynamic due to changing
nature of subject
5. Rather than asking questions from the lower levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy which encourage rote learning
(recall), LAQs and SAQs are asked from the higher levels
such as comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis
and evaluation.
6. Medical problems often have multiple valid approaches
and solutions. Providing a key answers can imply there is
only one correct way to address an issue, which is not
reflective of real-world medical practice where diverse
approaches are often required
7. The medical field requires professionals who can think
on their feet, adapt to new information, and apply
knowledge in varied situations. Training that relies on key
– 91 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
answers does not adequately prepare students for the
complexities and uncertainties of medical practice.
Hinders Critical Thinking Long essay questions are
intended to assess a student’s ability to think critically
and develop their own reasoned responses. Key answers
limit this by suggesting there is only one correct way to
address the question.
8. Over all, avoiding the use of key answers for long
essay questions promotes a more robust, equitable, and
practical learning environment in medical education.
9. If rote learning is encouraged by giving key answers to
the long and short essays, then the goals described by
the various apex bodies will not be achieved, because the
student will have a knowledge that the key answers are
the only way to solve the clinical conditions.
18.4. He submits that there are around 3,000 +
question paper codes for different courses at
RGUHS and a minimum of 10 sets of question
papers being prepared for each code of
question paper. Framing of model answers for
the descriptive essay type question is
challenging, especially in Health Science
courses and as such, key answers are only
provided for multiple choice questions and not
for essay type questions.
18.5. He further submits that the Academic Council
having considered and deliberated on all these
– 92 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
issues has come to a conclusion that for essay
type questions, the answer keys shall not be
given or provided for the evaluators of any
course. However, key answers shall be
provided for multiple-choice questions and on
that basis, he submits that the Academic
Council, which is the expert body in the field
having considered this aspect and negated the
requirement to provide model-key answers
and that such decisions may not be interfered
with by this Court.
18.6. The submission of Shri Madhusudhana R. Naik
learned Senior Counsel is that this is
essentially a policy decision and the Academic
Council being comprised of experts such
decision made by the Academic Council ought
not to be disturbed. What the Academic
Council has taken into account is that there
are more than 3,000 subjects codes, there
– 93 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
would be as regards each subject- 10 question
papers to be prepared, thus there would be
about 30,000 question papers and therefore,
30,000 model answer scripts and key answers,
would have to be created per examination.
This has been held to be administratively very
difficult and as such, a policy decision was
taken that model answers or key answers
could not be provided. This decision has been
taken purely on the basis of administrative
difficulties. There are no other reason/s which
has/ve been given except administrative
difficulties, in my considered opinion the
benefits of providing key answer/model
answers have not been considered, the
academic council has sought to negate its own
responsibilities on the basis of administrative
difficulties. The CAC, AC and the Syndicate as
also the vast workforce of the university have
been engaged to cater to these kind of
– 94 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
requirements and they are required to
administer the university in a proper manner,
needless to say they are also paid for it.
18.7. Providing key answers or model answers for
an examination question paper is an essential
practice in education that benefits students,
teachers, examiners, and educational
institutions. These solutions serve as
benchmarks, guiding students on how to
structure their responses, helping teachers
maintain consistency in grading, and ensuring
fairness and transparency in the assessment
process.
18.8. Benefits for Students
18.8.1. Students are the primary beneficiaries of
key answers and model solutions. These
resources serve as powerful learning tools
that enhance understanding, improve
– 95 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
answer-writing skills, and reduce exam-
related stress.
18.8.2. Enhances Conceptual Understanding:
Model answers provide students with a
clear explanation of complex topics,
helping them grasp concepts they may
have struggled with in class.
18.8.3. By analyzing detailed solutions, students
can identify key points they missed and
gain a better understanding of how to
approach different types of questions.
18.8.4. They allow students to see the logical flow
of information in an answer, helping them
develop a structured approach to learning.
18.8.5. Facilitates Self-Assessment and
Improvement: Key answers enable
students to compare their responses with
– 96 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
the ideal answers, allowing them to assess
their strengths and weaknesses.
18.8.6. By identifying gaps in their knowledge,
students can work on improving specific
areas where they struggle.
18.8.7. Self-assessment helps students take
ownership of their learning process,
making them more independent and
proactive in their studies.
18.8.8. Improves Answer-Writing Skills: Many
students struggle with structuring their
answers effectively. Model answers
provide a clear example of how to format
responses for maximum impact.
18.8.9. They demonstrate the appropriate use of
technical terminology, logical
organization, and coherence in writing.
– 97 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.8.10. Students can learn how to balance depth
and conciseness in their answers,
ensuring they provide sufficient detail
without unnecessary elaboration.
18.8.11. Boosts Confidence and Reduces Exam
Anxiety: Knowing the correct answers
and understanding how to present them
reduces uncertainty and fear surrounding
exams.
18.8.12. Students who practice with model answers
feel more prepared and confident in their
ability to perform well in tests.
18.8.13. Confidence gained through studying model
answers can lead to better time
management during exams, as students
are less likely to panic or waste time on
uncertain responses.
– 98 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.8.14. Promotes Fair and Objective Learning:
Model answers provide clarity on what is
expected from students, ensuring that
they prepare in the right direction.
18.8.15. By referring to standardized solutions,
students can develop a sense of fairness
in the grading process, reducing
frustration over perceived inconsistencies
in marking.
18.8.16. It helps students understand the rationale
behind correct answers, making them
more receptive to constructive feedback
from teachers.
18.9. Benefits for Teacher:
18.9.1. Teachers play a crucial role in guiding
students, and having access to key
answers or model solutions makes their
job more effective. These solutions help
– 99 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
streamline grading, improve instructional
methods, and ensure students receive
accurate guidance.
18.9.2. Ensures Consistency and Fairness in
Grading: When multiple teachers are
grading the same exam, variations in
assessment criteria can lead to
inconsistencies. Model answers help
establish a standardized grading system.
18.9.3. Teachers can refer to the key answers to
ensure uniform marking across different
students, reducing the chances of bias or
subjectivity.
18.9.4. Standardized grading minimizes disputes
over marks, as students can compare
their answers with the model solutions
and understand where they went wrong.
– 100 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.9.5. Saves Time in Evaluation: Manually
evaluating exams can be time-consuming,
especially when assessing subjective
answers. Model solutions provide a clear
benchmark, speeding up the grading
process.
18.9.6. Teachers can quickly cross-check student
responses with the key answers instead of
analyzing each answer from scratch.
18.9.7. By having predefined marking criteria,
teachers can focus on providing feedback
rather than spending excessive time
determining whether an answer is correct.
18.9.8. Helps in Teaching and Classroom
Discussions: Teachers can use model
answers as reference materials in
classroom discussions, helping students
– 101 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
understand how to frame their responses
effectively.
18.9.9. They can provide students with insights
into how examiners expect questions to
be answered, improving overall classroom
engagement.
18.9.10. Model solutions can also be used as
templates for structuring assignments,
essays, and reports, further strengthening
students’ academic skills.
18.9.11. Identifies Common Student Mistakes
and Learning Gaps: By comparing
student responses to model answers,
teachers can pinpoint areas where
students frequently make mistakes.
18.9.12. Understanding these common errors
allows teachers to modify their teaching
– 102 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
methods to address weaknesses in
students’ understanding.
18.9.13. This insight enables teachers to provide
targeted support to students, improving
overall academic performance.
18.10. Benefits for Examiners and
Institution
18.10.1. Educational institutions and examiners
benefit from providing model answers as
they help maintain academic integrity,
standardize assessments, and enhance
the credibility of the evaluation process.
18.10.2. Ensures Transparency in the
Evaluation Process: Model answers
make the grading process more
transparent, reducing student
- 103 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
complaints and challenges related to
unfair marking.
18.10.3. Institutions that provide key answers
promote a culture of academic integrity
and fairness, improving their reputation.
18.10.4. Transparency in grading helps maintain
trust between students, teachers, and
administrators.
18.10.5. Standardizes Assessment Criteria:
Examiners use model answers to establish
consistent grading rubrics, ensuring all
students are evaluated based on the same
criteria.
18.10.6. This standardization helps maintain the
quality of education and ensures that
academic qualifications are awarded fairly.
18.10.7. Standardized assessment criteria are
particularly important in competitive
– 104 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
exams, where even minor differences in
grading can impact student rankings.
18.10.8. Improves the Design of Future
Examinations: Reviewing student
performance against model answers helps
examiners refine future question papers to
ensure they accurately assess students’
knowledge.
18.10.9. It allows educators to identify which types
of questions are too easy, too difficult, or
ambiguous, leading to more effective test
design.
18.10.10. Institutions can use this data to improve
the overall quality of education and
ensure exams remain relevant to real-
world applications.
18.10.11. Encourages Higher-Order Thinking
Skills: Well-crafted model answers not
– 105 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
only provide correct information but also
demonstrate critical thinking, analysis,
and application of knowledge.
18.10.12. Students learn how to construct logical
arguments, present evidence, and draw
conclusions–skills that are essential for
academic and professional success.
18.10.13. Institutions that emphasize detailed model
answers contribute to the development of
students’ problem-solving and analytical
abilities.
18.11. Providing key answers or model answers for
an examination question paper is an essential
practice that benefits students, teachers, and
educational institutions. Students gain a
deeper understanding of subjects, improve
their answer-writing skills, and boost their
confidence. Teachers benefit from streamlined
– 106 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
grading, consistent evaluation, and better
instructional tools. Examiners and institutions
enhance fairness, transparency, and the
overall quality of assessments.
18.12. By integrating model answers into the learning
and assessment process, educators create a
more effective, transparent, and student-
friendly academic environment.
18.13. Of course, there are also demerits in providing
key answers or model answers some of which
are:
18.14. Demerits for Students
18.14.1. Encourages Rote Memorization
Instead of Conceptual Understanding:
One of the biggest drawbacks of providing
model answers is that students may focus
on memorizing them rather than
understanding the underlying concepts.
– 107 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 202418.14.2. Instead of developing problem-solving
skills, students may simply try to
reproduce the exact wording of the model
answer in exams.
18.14.3. This approach limits creativity and critical
thinking, making students dependent on
prefixed responses instead of engaging in
analytical reasoning.
18.14.4. Reduces Original Thinking and
Analytical Skills: When students rely too
much on model answers, they may not
develop their own methods of answering
questions.
18.14.5. It discourages independent thought,
making students less likely to explore
alternative perspectives or problem-
solving techniques.
– 108 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.14.6. In subjects like literature, history, and
social sciences, where multiple valid
interpretations exist, model answers may
limit students’ ability to form unique
arguments.
18.14.7. Creates Over-Reliance on Model
Answers: Some students may assume
that only the model answers are
acceptable and that any deviation from
them will result in lower marks.
18.14.8. This discourages them from attempting to
answer questions in their own words or
explore different ways to structure
responses.
18.14.9. If an exam contains questions that are not
covered in the model answers, students
who have overly relied on them may
struggle to adapt.
– 109 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.14.10. Can Mislead Students if Not Designed
Properly: If model answers are not well-
crafted or fail to cover the full range of
acceptable answers, they can mislead
students into believing that only one
specific approach is correct.
18.14.11. Poorly written key answers may contain
inaccuracies or incomplete explanations,
leading students to learn incorrect
information.
18.14.12. If different sources provide conflicting
model answers, students may become
confused about which one is correct.
18.14.13. Reduces Effort and Critical
Engagement: Some students may use
model answers as shortcuts and avoid
putting in the effort to fully engage with
the subject material.
– 110 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.14.14. Rather than developing a deep
understanding, students may skim
through model answers just to know
“what to write” without actually learning
the “why” behind it.
18.14.15. This can lead to a superficial learning
experience where students do not retain
information for long-term use.
18.15. Demerits for Teachers
18.15.1. Limits Flexibility in Assessment: Model
answers create a rigid standard that may
prevent teachers from appreciating
diverse ways of answering questions.
18.15.2. Students who think outside the box may
not receive full marks if their responses
do not closely match the model answer,
even if their answers are valid.
– 111 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.15.3. This rigidity can discourage creativity and
innovation in student responses.
18.15.4. Encourages a One-Size-Fits-All
Approach to Grading: Teachers may
become overly dependent on model
answers when grading, focusing only on
whether a student’s response matches the
key answer rather than evaluating the
quality of reasoning.
18.15.5. This can disadvantage students who use
different (but still correct) methods to
answer a question.
18.15.6. Standardized model answers may not
account for regional variations in
understanding, interpretation, or
expression, especially in subjects like
language, history, and social sciences.
– 112 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.15.7. Can Be a Source of Conflict in Marking
and Disputes: If students believe that
their answer is correct but different from
the model answer, it may lead to disputes
over marks.
18.15.8. Teachers may struggle to justify why an
answer deserves marks if it does not
closely align with the model answer, even
when the response is logically sound.
18.15.9. This can create tension between students
and teachers, leading to unnecessary
conflicts in the classroom.
18.15.10. May Reduce Teacher Creativity in
Instruction: Some teachers may rely too
much on model answers when teaching,
simply instructing students to memorize
them rather than explaining the concepts
in-depth.
– 113 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.15.11. This can lead to monotonous and
uninspiring teaching, reducing student
engagement in the learning process.
18.15.12. Over-reliance on model answers may
discourage teachers from developing new
teaching methods or encouraging students
to think beyond standardized solutions.
18.16. Demerits for Examiners and Educational
Institutions
18.16.1. Can Undermine the Purpose of
Examinations: The primary goal of
examinations is to test students’
understanding, analytical ability, and
application of knowledge.
18.16.2. If students focus solely on memorizing
model answers, exams become a test of
recall rather than comprehension.
– 114 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.16.3. This defeats the purpose of education,
which should aim at developing skills
rather than rote learning.
18.16.4. Leads to a Narrow Focus in Learning:
Model answers often emphasize a specific
way of answering a question, which may
limit students’ exposure to broader
concepts and alternative perspectives.
18.16.5. Examiners may find that students only
study specific parts of the syllabus that
are reflected in model answers, neglecting
other important areas.
18.16.6. This selective study approach can lead to
gaps in knowledge, making students ill-
prepared for real-world applications of
their subjects.
18.16.7. Encourages Predictable and
Repetitive Exam Patterns: If students
– 115 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
know that model answers exist, they may
predict which questions will appear in the
exam and only study those topics.
18.16.8. This reduces the effectiveness of exams
as a tool for measuring true
understanding, as students focus on past
questions rather than mastering the entire
subject.
18.16.9. Institutions that rely heavily on model
answers may find that students perform
well in exams but struggle with real-world
problem-solving.
18.16.10. Hampers Academic Integrity and
Encourages Plagiarism: When students
have access to model answers, some may
copy them word for word instead of
writing in their own words.
– 116 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.16.11. This can lead to high levels of similarity in
student responses, making it difficult to
differentiate genuine understanding from
mere memorization.
18.16.12. In extreme cases, the widespread use of
model answers can encourage academic
dishonesty, as students may view exams
as a mechanical exercise in reproduction
rather than an opportunity for learning.
18.16.13. Puts Pressure on Institutions to
Follow Rigid Marking Schemes: Some
educational institutions may face pressure
from students and parents to strictly
adhere to model answers when grading
exams.
18.16.14. This can reduce the flexibility of educators
to reward unique or innovative answers.
– 117 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.16.15. Over time, this can weaken the education
system by creating an environment where
students are discouraged from thinking
critically or developing their own ideas.
18.17. While key answers and model solutions
provide many benefits, they also come with
significant drawbacks. The biggest concerns
include encouraging rote learning,
discouraging creativity, limiting assessment
flexibility, and reducing the overall quality of
education. For an effective education system,
it is essential to strike a balance–using model
answers as guidance rather than absolute
solutions.
18.18. To mitigate these disadvantages, educators
should:
18.18.1. Encourage conceptual understanding
alongside model answers.
– 118 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
18.18.2. Promote diverse ways of answering
questions rather than enforcing a rigid
structure.
18.18.3. Use model answers as learning tools, not
just memorization aids.
18.18.4. Allow flexibility in grading to appreciate
different student perspectives.
18.19. By addressing these concerns, the education
system can ensure that model answers serve
as an aid to learning rather than a hindrance
to intellectual growth.
18.20. It is high time that the above are considered by
the Academic Council in the proper perspective
and action taken, rather than to disown or
abdicate responsibility on account of
administrative difficulties.
18.21. The manner in which cases have been coming
up before this Court, if the numbers are
tabulated, it would be clear to the University
that thousands of petitions are coming up as
– 119 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
regards the discrepancy in the valuation on
account of which, a student has been declared
failed.
18.22. It is not only the number of litigations that has
to be seen, but the number of lives which are
dependent on such evaluation too, more
particularly students in the younger age group
whose confidence could be adversely affected
if they are declared failed on account of
improper evaluation. The impact of this on the
psyche and the future of the student, on the
family of the student, the society as a whole,
as also on the college and the University need
not be more emphasized. The reasoning of the
Academic Council would indicate that there are
30,000 subjects being taught and there are
already 10 question papers for each subject
which have been prepared that would mean
that the University has no problem or difficulty
in preparing 30,000 question papers, but has
– 120 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
expressed only difficulty as regards preparing
corresponding model answers or key answers.
The Academic Council would have to
reconsider its decision on this aspect. The very
same person, who is setting the question
papers would be the best person to prepare
the key answers or model answers. Thus,
while preparing the question paper, the model
answers or key answers could also be
prepared by the very same person, who has
set/drafted the question paper. This would not
cause any administrative strain on the
University, but would go a long way in catering
to the difficulties faced by the students, while
doing so the above aspects pointed out could
be considered apart from those that may be
indicated as guidelines by the Academic
Council approved by the Syndicate..
18.23. The approach of the Academic Council
apparently has been to find fault with and or
– 121 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
find difficulties in preparing the model answers
and key answers. The Academic Council ought
to have actually looked into how to solve the
problems of the students, the colleges and the
University, thus bringing a stop to these kinds
of litigations which are a pain for everyone. No
student wants to come to court to agitate their
grievances. Thus, I am of the considered
opinion that the Academic Council would be
well advised to reconsider the decision and
appoint an external agency to look into this
aspect and work towards providing model
answers and key answers by working out a
methodology as to how it can be provided
rather than to state the difficulties of providing
it. This being the need of the day, I am sure
the Academic Council and the Syndicate would
take this in the right perspective and
implement a proper system.
– 122 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
19. Answer to Point No. (vii): What Order?
19.1. In view of my findings to all of the above
points, I do not find any discrepancy in the
ordinance issued for governing the evaluation
process of the examinations for Post Graduate
including Diploma and Super Speciality
courses, nor is there any manifest
arbitrariness in the ordinance issuing process.
19.2. As regards the manner of evaluation, I do not
find any discrepancy in evaluation of the answer
script of the petitioner, however I find the need
for training the evaluators before giving them
the work of evaluation, hence the University is
directed to carry out necessary training in that
regard.
19.3. In so far as providing key answers/model
answers, the Syndicate and Academic Council
are directed to reconsider their earlier decision
in terms of the observations made hereinabove.
– 123 –
NC: 2025:KHC:11430
WP No. 16960 of 2024
19.4. There being no grounds made out the above
petition stands dismissed in terms of the above
directions.
19.5. Though the matter is dismissed, relist on
24.04.2025 for reporting compliance with the
above directions.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
CKK/GAB/CKK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
[ad_1]
Source link