Karnataka High Court Overturns Order for Third MBBS Answer Script Valuation
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order that mandated a third valuation of answer scripts for certain MBBS students, delivering significant relief to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). This landmark decision reinforces the university's existing assessment framework and addresses critical questions about evaluation subjectivity in medical education.
Division Bench Upholds Central Assessment Programme
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha ruled that the ordinance governing the Central Assessment Programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment across all undergraduate health science courses at RGUHS ultimately benefits students. The CAP system provides for two independent valuations and considers the higher marks awarded between the two evaluations as final.
The court's decision comes after RGUHS challenged a July 30, 2025 order from a single bench that had issued two significant directions:
- The RGUHS syndicate and academic council were directed to reconsider providing essential key answers or model answers for descriptive questions to prevent anomalies during initial evaluations.
- RGUHS was instructed to forward the petitioners' answer scripts to an additional evaluator for fresh assessment due to significant discrepancies between marks awarded by existing evaluators.
Court Questions Practicality of Third Valuation
The division bench expressed serious reservations about the practicality and fairness of introducing a third valuation. "We are unable to accept that referring the answer scripts to a third valuer would, in any manner, mitigate this element of subjectivity in the evaluation of answer scripts," the bench observed in its detailed ruling.
The court highlighted several procedural concerns with the single bench's direction:
- If a third evaluator awards higher marks than both previous evaluators, there would be no clear provision determining which marks should be accepted
- The existing system has no mechanism for declaring results based on the highest marks awarded by three different evaluators
- There is no provision for averaging marks from multiple evaluators to finalize results
"In this view, the direction to refer the answer scripts to the third evaluator is unsustainable," the bench concluded while allowing the appeals filed by RGUHS.
University Autonomy in Evaluation Processes
The division bench noted that the National Medical Commission (NMC) appeared to have altered its position on evaluation standards and emphasized that subjective answers in medical science cannot be evaluated solely based on key phrases or terms. RGUHS had argued convincingly that answers to medical science questions must be evaluated based on students' comprehensive understanding and knowledge rather than mechanical keyword matching.
"In our view, it would not be appropriate for this court to examine how answers to questions in a particular subject are required to be evaluated," the bench stated. "The university is at liberty to take an appropriate decision uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order."
This ruling affirms the autonomy of educational institutions in determining appropriate evaluation methodologies while acknowledging the inherent subjectivity involved in assessing complex medical knowledge. The decision provides clarity on assessment protocols for medical education institutions across Karnataka and potentially sets a precedent for similar cases nationwide.
