JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The original record pertaining to conduct of the practical examination on 15.06.2018 for M.D. (Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy) at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur has been produced before us. 3. The said original record would show that following marks have been assigned to the four candidates for the Grand Viva:- Roll No. Grand Viva Drug Instruments Histo-path X-ray Vive-Voce 10 10 10 10 10 207437 5 2 4 7 8 207438 5 5 7 6 5 207439 6 6 7 6 6 207440 7 7 5 5 3 4. On totaling the marks assigned on a maximum scale of 10, for Roll No.207437 the marks come to 26. For Roll No.207438 the marks come to 28. For Roll No.207439 the marks come to 31. For Roll No.207440 the marks come to 27. 5. In the consolidated mark-sheet forwarded the marks written against Roll Nos.207439 and 207440 are 31 and 27 respectively which correspond to the Grand Viva Sheet duly signed by Dr. Sujay Khandpur, Examiner-3, who subjected the candidates to the Grand Viva, but for Roll Nos.207437 and 207438 the marks are shown as 18 and 23 respectively. 6. There is obviously a hiatus between the marks as shown consolidately and as reflected in the Grand Viva Sheet. 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent-University states that the score sheet shown to the Court today is manipulated. When questioned as to where is the original score sheet, Counsel states that the same appears to have been retained by the S.M.S. Medical College and what has been produced before the Court is a forged or an interpolated score sheet. 8. S.M.S. Medical College is a Government College and we see no reason as to why the Examiner would make any kind of interpolations. It is obviously a case of totaling error and thus we hold that for Roll Nos. 207437 and 207438 the marks for Grand Viva would be 26 and 28 respectively. 9. We find that pertaining to 50 marks assigned for the topic 'Spotter', for the four roll numbers marks assigned by Dr. It is obviously a case of totaling error and thus we hold that for Roll Nos. 207437 and 207438 the marks for Grand Viva would be 26 and 28 respectively. 9. We find that pertaining to 50 marks assigned for the topic 'Spotter', for the four roll numbers marks assigned by Dr. Puneet Bhargava, Examiner-1 are as under:- Roll No. Spotter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 207437 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 207438 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 207439 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 5 4 3 207440 3 4 5 2 4 2 4 4 2 3 10. For 50 marks comprising 25 marks each for Semi Long Case 1 and Semi Long Case 2, the marks assigned by Dr. C.M. Kuldeep, Examiner-4 are as under:- Roll No. Long Case Semi Long Case 1 Semi Long Case 2 50 25 25 207437 17 19 207438 16 18 207439 17 18 207440 15 18 11. For 50 marks pertaining to Long Case, the marks awarded by Dr. Ram Chander, Examiner-2 are as under:- Roll No. Long Case 50 207437 32 207438 30 207439 35 207440 27 12. If we total the marks for Spotter, pertaining to the four roll numbers, the marks would be 38, 33, 35 and 33 respectively. 13. If we total the marks for Semi Long Case 1 and Semi Long Case 2, for the four roll numbers, the marks would be 36, 34, 35 and 33 respectively. 14. For Long Case, the marks would be 32, 30, 35 and 27 respectively. 15. Thus, pertaining to Spotters, Semi Long Case 1, Semi Long Case 2 and Long Case, the marks for the four roll numbers would be 106, 97, 105 and 93 respectively. 16. The marks in the consolidated under the category of 150 marks for the four roll numbers are shown as 74, 67, 105 and 93 respectively. It is obvious that there is a totaling error pertaining to Roll Nos.207437 and 207438. 17. In view of the original record the claim of appellant and respondent No.3 is correct that in the consolidated mark-sheet there is a totaling error. 18. It is obvious that there is a totaling error pertaining to Roll Nos.207437 and 207438. 17. In view of the original record the claim of appellant and respondent No.3 is correct that in the consolidated mark-sheet there is a totaling error. 18. We find that in the impugned order the learned Single Judge has not carried out the exercise to find out as to what are the marks recorded by the four Examiners in the Log Sheet maintained. 19. We have decided the issue by looking at the primary documents and thus declare that the appellant and respondent No.3 be assigned marks as per the four Log Sheets produced in Court today and in respect of which we have noted their marks as above. Both, the appellant and respondent No.3, who were the writ-petitioners, would therefore be entitled to be declared 'passed' for the reasons they have scored more than 50% marks. 20. We dispose of the appeal directing the first respondent to declare the result of the appellant and respondent No.3 in terms of the present decision.