Vice Chancellor is competent to order answer-book re-evaluation under university statutes.

The petitioner was allotted Nalanda Medical College, Patna, after qualifying in NEET and enrolled in the First M.B.B.S. Course.

He failed in Biochemistry Papers I and II and Human Anatomy Papers I and II in the First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination, 2023.

In the 2024 supplementary examination, he cleared Anatomy but obtained 139 out of 300 marks in Biochemistry, falling 11 marks short of the required 150 marks and was consequently declared unsuccessful.

Relying on Section 21(d), Chapter I of the Statutes of Aryabhatta Knowledge University, the petitioner asserted that the Vice-Chancellor had authority to order re-evaluation where the answer books had not been properly evaluated or the evaluation violated the University’s Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances.

Despite his representation, no final decision was taken, leading him to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The University stated that, pursuant to Notification No. 1697 dated 11 April 2025, re-evaluation of each answer sheet required payment of ₹50,000.

It further stated that a third evaluation would be undertaken by a reputed institution if there was a difference of 20% in the marks awarded during evaluation.

Whether the petitioner could seek re-evaluation of his Biochemistry answer books under Section 21(d), Chapter I of the University Statutes, upon alleging improper or irregular evaluation?

Whether the petitioner was required to comply with the University’s prescribed procedure and deposit the fee of ₹50,000 for evaluation of each answer sheet?

Whether the University should be directed to undertake the re-evaluation and publish the consequential result within a specified period?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which the High Court may issue appropriate directions to ensure lawful exercise of statutory or public functions.

It relied principally on Section 21(d), Chapter I of the Statutes of Aryabhatta Knowledge University, which empowers the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation where satisfied that an answer book was not properly evaluated or was evaluated in violation of the University’s Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances.

The Court also applied University Notification No. 1697 dated 11 April 2025, prescribing a fee of ₹50,000 for evaluation of each answer sheet and providing for third evaluation by a reputed institution where the difference in marks was 20%.

The Court noted that the petitioner had specifically invoked the statutory mechanism for re-evaluation and that the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Nalanda Medical College supported the position that the Vice-Chancellor was the competent authority to consider such a request.

Since the University had prescribed a procedure and fee for re-evaluation, and the petitioner expressly agreed to deposit the requisite amount for his Biochemistry Papers I and II, the Court considered it appropriate to facilitate consideration of the request rather than determine the correctness of the original evaluation itself.

Accordingly, it directed the petitioner to approach the Controller of Examinations with the Court’s order, an application, and the prescribed demand draft.

It directed the petitioner to submit an application to the Controller of Examinations, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, along with the order and a demand draft of ₹50,000, preferably within two weeks, for re-evaluation of the Biochemistry Papers I and II.

Upon receipt of the application and fee, the University was directed to complete the evaluation within four weeks and publish the consequential mark sheet/result.