Mandamus for re-evaluation cannot be issued when statutory regulations expressly prohibit re-evaluation of answer scripts.

The respondents (original writ petitioners) were postgraduate medical students under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS).

In the examinations conducted in September 2025, the students secured an aggregate of 200/400 or more in theory papers but failed to secure the mandatory minimum of 40 marks in one specific paper.

Under Regulation 8.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, their answer scripts were evaluated by two examiners, and the average was taken as the final result.

The students sought a writ of mandamus for re-evaluation/third evaluation of the papers they failed.

A Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on "grounds of equity" and "substantial justice," directing a third evaluation.

The University and the National Medical Commission (NMC) appealed this decision.

1. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, can direct the re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of a statutory provision or in the face of an express legal prohibition.

2. Whether the requirement of securing an aggregate of 50% while failing a single paper constitutes an "exceptional circumstance" warranting judicial interference on grounds of equity.

3. Whether the 15% variation threshold for a third evaluation under Regulation 8.4(b) refers to 15% of the "total marks prescribed" (maximum marks) or 15% of the marks actually awarded.

The Court primarily applied Regulation 8.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which stipulates a dual passing criteria (50% aggregate and 40% per paper) and expressly prohibits re-evaluation under Clause 8.4(c).

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in *Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth* and *Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, BPSC*, which establish that no candidate has a right to claim re-evaluation unless the rules specifically provide for it.

Further, it cited *Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.* and *Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Thrinadh* to emphasize that sympathy or equity cannot override statutory prohibitions in examination matters.

The Court observed that the evaluation process followed the prescribed methodology of averaging two valuations.

It rejected the respondents' plea for "equity," noting that the criteria for passing—meeting both aggregate and individual paper thresholds—is a standard academic requirement and does not constitute a "manifest error" or "procedural irregularity."

The Court held that when Regulation 8.4(c) explicitly prohibits re-evaluation, the judiciary cannot issue a Mandamus to the contrary.

Regarding the interpretation of the 15% variation, the Court clarified that "total marks prescribed for the paper" in Regulation 8.4(b) unambiguously means the maximum marks (100) and cannot be re-interpreted to mean the marks awarded, despite acknowledging that the latter might be a more logical policy choice for the authorities to consider.

The Court set aside the orders of the Learned Single Judge and allowed the writ appeals filed by the University and the NMC.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.