Bihar HC orders re-evaluation of MBBS Physiology answer sheets after students miss passing marks by just 1–3 marks

The petitioners were MBBS students of the 2024 batch affiliated with the Bihar University of Health Sciences. Petitioners 1 and 3, students of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur, appeared in the 1st Professional MBBS Examination, 2025 (I), but were unsuccessful in Physiology. Petitioner 2, a student of Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, did not appear in the main examination. All three subsequently appeared in the supplementary examination but again failed in Physiology.

The passing requirement was 150 out of 300 marks. Petitioner 1 secured 148 marks, Petitioner 2 secured 147 marks, and Petitioner 3 secured 149 marks. They sought re-evaluation of their answer sheets, but their requests were not considered, leading them to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to re-evaluation of their Physiology answer sheets under Chapter 11(C)/Section 11(C) of the First Statute of the Bihar University of Health Sciences, particularly when they fell short of the passing marks by only one to three marks.

Whether the Court could direct the University authorities to undertake such re-evaluation and pass consequential orders in accordance with law.

The Court applied Chapter 11(C), referred to in the judgment also as Section 11(C), of the First Statute of the Bihar University of Health Sciences. The provision empowers the Examination Board to order re-evaluation where it is satisfied that an answer book has not been properly evaluated or that the evaluation has violated the applicable Statutes or Regulations; the Vice-Chancellor’s decision is stated to be final in the matter.

The University did not dispute the existence or applicability of this re-evaluation mechanism.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ marks were marginally below the prescribed pass mark—by two, three, and one mark respectively—and that they alleged patent and demonstrable errors and improper evaluation of their answer sheets.

Since the governing statutory framework expressly permitted re-evaluation in cases of improper evaluation, and the University did not contest that statutory power, the Court considered the case appropriate for exercise of that mechanism. The direction was limited to re-evaluation by the competent University authority and did not itself declare the petitioners successful.

They were directed to approach the Controller of Examinations, Bihar University of Health Sciences, with a copy of the order, preferably within two weeks. Any prescribed fee was to be paid, and upon receipt of the applications, the competent authority was directed to conduct re-evaluation preferably within four weeks and take further necessary action in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.