Karnataka HC division bench sets aside single-judge order, rules out re-evaluation of answer scripts of failed medical students

The order added, “There is no allegation that the evaluation is biased or that the evaluators were incompetent to assess papers. In the circumstances, absent any manifest error in the evaluation of answer scripts or the evaluation process, there is no justification – either on the ground of equity or law – to interfere with the examination results.”

As per the University criteria for passing the examination, a student has to secure more than 200 marks out of 400 in the theory examination, which comprises four papers of 100 marks each, and a minimum of 40 marks in each of the four papers.

The students before the court had secured 200 marks but had not scored the minimum marks required in one paper and they were declared failed. The students contended before the single judge that the re-evaluation of the answer scripts is warranted in exceptional circumstances, and, in their case, grave injustice would be caused if their answer sheets are not re-assessed by a third evaluator. Agreeing with their contention, a single judge had on December 1, 2025, passed the impugned order, which was challenged in appeal by the University.

The University in appeal referred to Regulation 8.4 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, and submitted that each answer script was evaluated by two evaluators, and the average of the marks awarded by the two evaluators was accepted as the final result, and so a third evaluator was not needed.

The bench in the order referred to Regulation 8.4(c) of the 2023 Rules, which expressly prohibits re-evaluation of answer scripts.

The bench in its order held, “The fact that the students have secured more than 200 out of 400 marks in the aggregate but have failed to clear one or more theory papers is not an exceptional circumstance that would warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The court emphasised that the criteria that a student must secure a minimum 50 per cent aggregate mark in all papers and secure a minimum threshold pass mark in each paper are neither novel nor unusual.

Allowing the appeals, the court in its order held, “It would be impermissible for the Court to direct re-evaluation of answer scripts solely because a student has not secured the minimum marks required for clearing an examination.”