Telangana HC junks PG medicos' plea on exam evaluation, upholds NMC norms
Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court recently dismissed a plea of postgraduate medical students challenging the evaluation process of their October 2025 examinations, observing that the matter is not within the court's expertise.
While passing the order, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Renuka Yara also held that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the conduct of exams or valuation of answer scripts under the National Medical Commission (NMC) Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23).
The court observed, "This Court lacks expertise in said arena. It is the domain of the valuators who are engaged by the university, who are competent persons to value the answer scripts and award marks. In any case, to avoid arbitrariness, whenever there is a difference of 15% or more, said paper is sent for valuation by a third valuator, and therefore, the scope for arbitrariness is reduced."
The petitioners, who appeared for the postgraduate medical examinations for the 2023 batch held in October 2025, have filed a writ petition alleging that the examination was conducted in violation of statutory regulations, i.e., 'Post-Graduate Medical Educational Regulations, 2023' ('PGMER-23') issued by National Medical Commission ('NMC').
The counsel for the petitioners argued that while they performed well in the Formative (internal) assessments conducted by colleges, the Summative (final) examinations conducted by the university were improperly evaluated. They alleged that the failure rate rose sharply to 11% from the usual 1–2%, and the petitioners were declared failed on the ground that they had obtained 1 to 5 marks less than the required in aggregate or in individual papers.
When one of the candidates made a request, the counsel stated that her answer paper was re-evaluated and it was found that for some of the answers she had written, no marks were assigned. After reevaluation, the candidate, who was declared to have failed initially, was subsequently declared to have passed the examination.
Adding to this, the counsel submitted that similarly, 4 to 5 candidates reportedly cleared after reevaluation. The results were declared within four days of the last exam, which raised suspicion about the arbitrariness.
The petitioners challenge a 19.06.2025 letter issued by Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences introducing digital valuation for PG exams, under which answer scripts were evaluated by two examiners, with a third only in case of 15% variation. They argue this violates the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER-23) of the National Medical Commission, which mandate evaluation by at least four examiners. The petitioners submit that the respondents could not confine the examiners to only two instead of four.
They further alleged that answer scripts were not assessed by qualified examiners and that even the prescribed double valuation and third evaluation norms were not properly followed.
The petitioners further submitted that marks were not awarded properly in the theory answers as well as viva voce tests. There were no external examiners, and the internal examiners had no time to value the answer sheets of candidates with proper attention. The very fact of 11% of candidates failing shows arbitrary action on the part of respondents, said the counsel.
Citing earlier High Court rulings mandating four examiners and proper revaluation, they state that despite representations to authorities, no action was taken, forcing them to approach this Court.
-The concerned university filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners, admitted to PG courses under an affiliated university, were evaluated as per National Medical Commission (NMC) PGMER-23 regulations. These require separate passing in theory and practical exams, with at least 40% in each theory paper, 50% aggregate in all the four papers in broad specialty and super specialty subjects and 50% in practicals.
They stated that answer scripts from the October 2025 MD/MS exams were scanned and evaluated by two examiners, with a third evaluator assigned if the variation exceeded 15%. As the petitioners scored below 40%, they were declared failed.
Submitting that there were no discrepancies in evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioners, the university claimed that there was only one candidate whose revaluation was done contrary to NMC regulations. Therefore, the State Government has constituted inquiry committee and the matter was investigated by vigilance department.
The petitioners, after filing the writ petition, pursuant to orders of this Court, paid Rs. 2000/- to check the answer sheets along with the marks allotted. The petitioners were shown answer sheets, but they did not contain any marks allotted to each question paper in each paper. Instead, a separate sheet with marks script or the marks report was shown. A verification of such marks by the first valuer and second valuer showed that there is a drastic variation in marks said to have been awarded to each question.
Court findings
The Court noted that the petitioners’ main contention was that their answer scripts should have been evaluated by four examiners under Regulation 8.2 of the National Medical Commission (NMC) PGMER-23. However, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (university and controller of examinations) argued that valuation is governed by Regulation 8.4(b), not Regulation 8.2.
After examining the provisions, the Court observed that Regulation 8.2 relates only to the appointment and composition of examiners for conducting postgraduate examinations requiring four examiners, two for internal examiners and two from outside and one of them should be from outside the State and does not deal with the evaluation of answer scripts.
On the other hand, Regulation 8.4(b) specifically governs valuation, providing for assessment by two examiners, with a third evaluator in cases where the variation exceeds 15% which means Regulation 8.4 ib) is clearly about answer scripts and their valuation.
Accordingly, the Court held that Regulation 8.4(b), and not Regulation 8.2, applies to the valuation of answer scripts, and that the petitioners had misconstrued the regulations.
The Bench observed, "It is also a point to be noted that there is no reference to the total marks and minimum marks in theory paper followed by practical examination and viva voce examination in Regulation 8.2 which is only concerned with the invigilators who are going to conduct the examinations. Such details about the theory paper, its maximum marks, minimum marks practical and viva voce examination is mentioned under Regulation 8.4. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have conducted the examination as per Regulation 8.2 and have valued the answer script as per Regulation 8.4 (b) and therefore, there was no irregularity or arbitrariness in conducting the examination or valuation of the answer scripts.
Furthermore, as per Regulation 8.4 (a) of the PGMER-23, all the teachers of the other colleges of the concerned university or universities, who are eligible to be postgraduate examiners can perform the valuation of the answer scripts. The above Regulation clearly makes distinction between a postgraduate examiner and valuator of answer script. The examiner, who is eligible to actually conduct the examination for the postgraduate students, can also perform the role of the valuator of the answer script. Thus, Regulation 8.4 (a) makes it clear that an examiner is different from valuator and examiner is also eligible to perform the role of the valuator of the answer scripts. Thus, Regulation 8.2 i.e., Examiners is distinct and separate from the Regulation 8.4 i.e., Valuations."
Referring to the additional affidavit, the Court noted that the petitioners introduced a new plea challenging recent regulations requiring candidates to reappear in all components even if they had passed one. The Court found this contention to be an afterthought, raised only after the petitioners accessed their marks by paying the prescribed fee. It further held that since this relief was not part of the original prayer in the writ petition, it cannot be considered.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ plea of arbitrary valuation based on differences in marks awarded by evaluators, observing that such an exercise falls outside its expertise.
It held,
"It is the domain of the valuators who are engaged by the university, who are competent persons to value the answer scripts and award marks. In any case, to avoid arbitrariness, whenever there is a difference of 15% or more, said paper is sent for valuation by a third valuator and therefore, the scope for arbitrariness is reduced."
The Bench further held, "There is no merit in the petitioners' plea to assess their paper as per Regulation 8.2 of PGMER-23 issued by NMC, rather, the valuation of the answer script has to be done as per Regulation 8.4, and since the same is followed, the petitioners have no case to seek any direction to the respondents."
Finding no merit in the claims, the Court termed the writ petition misconceived and dismissed it.
To view the court order, click on the link below:
