Fail 1 PG paper, reappear for all: Telangana HC denies relief to MD Anaesthesiology medico

Hyderabad: In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court has upheld that a postgraduate medical student will have to re-appear for all four theory papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce examination in case he/she fails even one paper.

Referring to the provisions in the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations (PGMER) 2023, the HC bench comprising Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed that "The criteria for evaluation unequivocally stipulate that a candidate must secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing, which includes theory as a whole, and further mandates that in each theory paper, a minimum of 40% must be secured. Thus, the requirement is not merely paper-specific, but is embedded within a larger framework of overall competency across all components of the examination. The expression ‘fails even under one head’ occurring in Clause (3) cannot be narrowly construed to mean failure in a single paper alone. The said expression, when read in the context of the scheme of the examination, refers to failure in any component or requirement that forms part of the overall assessment. Once a candidate fails to meet the prescribed minimum in any one component, the result is declared as ‘failed’, and the candidate is required to undergo the process of re-assessment in accordance with the regulatory scheme."

The HC bench made this observation while considering a plea filed by an MD Anaesthesiology student at Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. The concerned PG medico could not score the passing mark in Paper-I by a single mark in the examinations held in October 2025. He scored 39 while the minimum required marks are 40. Therefore, he sought permission to reappear only in that paper.

The exam comprised four theory papers, including Paper-I Basic Sciences and Applied Anatomy, Paper-II Systemic and Regional Anesthesia", Paper-III Systemic and Super Specialty Anesthesia, and Paper-IV Recent Advances and ICU, along with practical and viva voce components.

Since the University insisted that the petitioner reappear in all four papers, he filed the plea before the HC bench, seeking a declaration that detaining him by one mark is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and he also sought production and inspection of his answer script.

By an order dated 04.02.2026, the court permitted the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee by paying the requisite fees for verification of the answer scripts. Based on the order, the petitioner approached the Grievance Committee and on inspection it was found that in respect of Question No.6, though he answered the question, no marks whatsoever were awarded and there was no indication of evaluation by the examiner, not even a marking or notation, and the answer was awarded 'zero' marks.

According to the petitioner, in a theory examination, once an answer is written, there must be some semblance of application of mind by the examiner while evaluating the same, and the absence of any marking whatsoever in respect of Question No.6 clearly indicates non-consideration of the answer.

He referred to Clause 8.4 of the PostGraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, issued by the National Medical Commission, which governs the valuation and evaluation of answer scripts. The said Clause provides for double valuation of answer scripts, computation of average marks, and further stipulates the criteria for evaluation of M.D. courses, including that there shall be four theory papers of 100 marks each, total 400 marks, with a passing minimum of 200/400 and a minimum of 40% in each paper, and that a candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing, including theory, practical/clinical and viva voce.

The petitioner relied upon Clause (3) of the criteria for evaluation, which states that if any candidate fails even under one head, he/she has to re-appear for both theory and practical/clinical and viva voce examination. He argued that the said provision does not state that a candidate must re-appear in all four theory papers in the event of failure in one paper and the interpretation sought to be placed by the University requiring re-appearance in all four papers is contrary to the regulation.

He argued that since he has already passed in three theory papers, there is no no requirement for him to re-appear in the said papers.

On the other hand, the University relied upon Regulation 8.4, which deals with valuation and contended that the criteria for evaluation clearly stipulate that a candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing, including theory, practical/clinical and viva voce, and that in addition, in each theory paper, a candidate must secure a minimum of 40%.

It was specifically argued that the Regulation provides that if any candidate fails even under one head, he/she shall have to re-appear for all four theory papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce, and not merely the paper in which the candidate has failed.

Addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding Question No. 6, it was argued that despite evaluation by two examiners, the petitioner did not secure any marks for the answer to Question No.6, and therefore the evaluation cannot be faulted.

Petitioner cannot call into question the evaluation of the answer scripts, as it is a settled proposition that in the field of medical examinations, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited and the Court ought not to interfere in the matter of assessment and evaluation of answer sheets by expert examiners, argued the University.

While considering the matter, the bench addressed the petitioner's reliance on Clause 8.4 of the Regulations and more particularly Clause (3) of the criteria for evaluation, which provides that if any candidate fails even under one head, he/she has to re-appear for both theory and practical/clinical and viva voce examination. The Court noted that the petitioner's argument was that the said provision must be construed to mean that re-appearance is confined only to the paper in which the candidate has failed.

However, at this outset, the bench observed, "This Court is unable to accept the said contention. A statutory or regulatory provision cannot be read in isolation or in a truncated manner so as to suit a particular interpretation. The provision must be read harmoniously along with the entire scheme of the Regulations. The regulatory framework, as placed on record, clearly establishes that the Post Graduate medical examination is a composite and integrated assessment consisting of multiple components, namely theory (four papers), practical/clinical and viva voce, and that each of these components constitutes a "head of passing"."

The bench observed that the criteria for evaluation unequivocally stipulate that a candidate must secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing, which includes theory as a whole, and further mandates that in each theory paper, a minimum of 40% must be secured. Therefore, the bench noted that the requirement is not merely paper-specific, but is embedded within a larger framework of overall competency across all components of the examination.

"The expression ‘fails even under one head’ occurring in Clause (3) cannot be narrowly construed to mean failure in a single paper alone. The said expression, when read in the context of the scheme of the examination, refers to failure in any component or requirement that forms part of the overall assessment. Once a candidate fails to meet the prescribed minimum in any one component, the result is declared as ‘failed’, and the candidate is required to undergo the process of re-assessment in accordance with the regulatory scheme," it observed.

"Respondents have categorically asserted that the regulatory requirement is that upon failure in one head, the candidate is required to re-appear for all the four theory papers along with practical/clinical and viva voce. This interpretation, in considered view of this Court, is consistent with the structure and object of Post Graduate medical education, which is designed to ensure comprehensive evaluation of a candidate's knowledge, skill and competence, rather than fragmented or paper-wise certification," it further noted.

The bench observed that acceptance of the interpretation sought to be advanced by Petitioner would result in reading into the Regulation something which is not expressly provided and would defeat the uniformity and rigor of the evaluation process prescribed for Post Graduate medical courses.

"Such an interpretation cannot be adopted, particularly in the absence of any ambiguity in the regulatory framework," it held.

Addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-awarding any marks in Question No. 6, the bench observed, "Insofar as the contention of Petitioner regarding non-award of marks for Question No.6 is concerned, this Court finds no merit in the same. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 36837 of 2025, Petitioner was permitted to inspect his answer scripts upon approaching the Grievance Committee by paying the requisite fee. He, in fact, availed the said opportunity and verified the answer scripts."

The court noted that the regulations clearly provide that all answer scripts shall be subjected to double valuation, and in cases where there is a variation of 15% or more between the two evaluators, the script shall be subjected to a third valuation.

"It is also expressly stipulated that after computation and declaration of results, revaluation is not permissible under any circumstances. In the present case, it is the specific stand of respondents that Petitioner did not secure any marks for the answer to Question No.6 despite evaluation by two examiners. Mere absence of markings or notations on a particular answer, by itself, cannot be a ground for this Court to infer nonevaluation or to undertake a re-assessment of the answer. Evaluation of answer scripts is within the exclusive domain of subject experts, and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal over such academic assessments," observed the bench.

"It is a settled principle that in matters relating to academic evaluation, especially in specialized disciplines such as medical education, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. Interference is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. No such circumstance is made out in the present case. Further, the Regulations specifically provide that no grace marks are permissible in Post Graduate examinations, either for theory or for practical. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner has fallen short by one mark cannot be a ground to seek relaxation or indulgence from this Court," it further held, while dismissing the plea.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/04/25/telangana-hc--343784.pdf

Also Read: Telangana HC junks PG medicos' plea on exam evaluation, upholds NMC norms