Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts Prohibited Absent Express Statutory Provisions or Demonstrable Manifest Error

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

In the 2025 examinations, they secured an aggregate of 50% or more (200/400 marks) across four theory papers but failed to meet the minimum threshold of 40 marks in one specific paper.

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

The students filed writ petitions seeking re-evaluation.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petitions, directing a third valuation on grounds of "equity" and "substantial justice" because the students had passed the aggregate requirement.

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

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

2. Whether the fact that a candidate secured the aggregate passing marks but failed a single paper constitutes an "exceptional circumstance" warranting judicial interference.

3. Whether the 15% difference required for a third valuation under Regulation 8.4(b) refers to 15% of the total prescribed 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 twin passing criteria (50% aggregate and 40% per paper) and expressly prohibits re-evaluation under Clause (c).

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in *Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth*, which held that candidates have no right to re-evaluation absent specific rules.

And *Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, which established that courts should permit re-evaluation only in rare cases of demonstrable material error without inferential reasoning.

The court also noted that sympathy or equity cannot override statutory examination rules as per *Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Thrinadh*.

The Court reasoned that Regulation 8.4(c) contains an explicit "negative covenant" against re-evaluation, which the Single Judge ignored.

It found that the students failed to allege any malpractice, procedural irregularity, or examiner incompetence; their sole grievance was the failure to meet the 40-mark threshold in one paper.

The Court emphasized that fulfilling the aggregate criteria while failing an individual paper is a common examination result and does not constitute a "manifest error" or "exceptional hardship".

Regarding the interpretation of Regulation 8.4(b), the Court held that the phrase "15% and more of the total marks prescribed for the paper" unambiguously refers to the maximum marks (100) rather than the marks awarded; thus, a difference of at least 15 marks is required to trigger a third valuation.

The Court concluded that "equity" and "sympathy" are not valid grounds to bypass clear statutory regulations in academic matters.

The Court further held that "total marks prescribed" in Regulation 8.4(b) means the maximum marks for the paper.

Consequently, the Writ Appeals were allowed, the impugned orders of the Single Judge were set aside, and the original writ petitions were dismissed.