ORDER : R. Devdas, J. The problem of valuation and revaluation seems to be raising its ugly head again and again, inspite of several decisions. The petitioners in these writ petitions are medical students seeking revaluation of their answer papers. Prayers are also made to declare the "Amendment to Ordinance Governing Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS-3 Scheme)" (hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance 13.10.2020', for short) notified on 13.10.2020 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since common questions arise for decision making, with the consent of learned Counsels on both the sides, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Lakshminarayana, appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners submitted that the Ordinance 13.10.2020 is required to be quashed as illegal and without authority of law, since it has not been notified in the Gazette. It is submitted that though there is no specific prescription of notifying the Ordinance in the Gazette, the general rule requiring notification of Ordinances, legislations, amendments, etc., should be made applicable to Ordinances issued by the respondent Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-University', for short). It is further submitted that the previous Ordinance, 2019 which was holding the field having been struck down by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.31335/2019 on 10.08.2020, but the petitioners having been admitted to the MBBS Courses during the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, any new Ordinance brought into operation subsequent to the admissions, cannot be held operational as against the said students. It is submitted that such of the students who were admitted prior to the new Ordinance-2020, will be governed by Ordinance-2019 or any other Ordinance holding the field prior to the Ordinance-2019. It was submitted that the impugned Ordinance is not applicable to the petitioners as the same was issued after the schedule of exams were announced. It was submitted that the stakeholders were not consulted and objections were not called for. 3. It was submitted that the impugned Ordinance is not applicable to the petitioners as the same was issued after the schedule of exams were announced. It was submitted that the stakeholders were not consulted and objections were not called for. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., appearing for some of the petitioners submits that during the year 2008, the respondent University had constituted an Examination Reforms Committee consisting of experts drawn from all faculties to discuss the reforms in the existing examination system and consequently, in terms of the recommendations made by the reforms committee a notification was issued, revising the Ordinance pertaining to 3rd evaluation in UG Courses and 5th evaluation in PG Courses and provision of challenge valuation was provided for. As per the revised notification dated 30.08.2008, all the UG examinations were required to be valued by two different examiners independently. Provision was made for challenge valuation for the aggrieved students. The average marks of the best of two evaluations, in respect of UG students, was provided for. However, by notification dated 22.03.2010, the system of challenge evaluation was abolished and revaluation in case of deviation in general valuation was introduced. As per the said notification, the Ordinance governing revaluation came into effect from 01.04.2010, where provision was made for general valuation by two valuators in the case of UG courses and four valuators for the PG courses. Revaluation was provided for by the 3rd examiner with respect to UG and 5th examiner with respect to PG courses. It provided that wherever the deviation between any two valuations in the general valuation is 15% or more, revaluation shall be made. The Ordinance was made applicable only to Theory papers and not viva/clinical/practical examinations, in respect of UG courses. 4. By a further notification dated 15.06.2012, a new Ordinance was brought into effect from 15.06.2012. The change that was brought about in the said Ordinance was to take the average of the best of two out of three valuation marks, for consideration of final computation of the results. However, taking into consideration certain observations and directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Menaka Mohan and Others Vs. The Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Others, in W.P. Nos. 48194-48198/2018 and connected matters decided on 21.12.2018, by notification dated 29.03.2019, a new Ordinance was brought into effect from 01.03.2019. However, taking into consideration certain observations and directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Menaka Mohan and Others Vs. The Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Others, in W.P. Nos. 48194-48198/2018 and connected matters decided on 21.12.2018, by notification dated 29.03.2019, a new Ordinance was brought into effect from 01.03.2019. Certain changes regarding rounding off of decimals with algebraic formula was provided for. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Another, in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters, decided on 10.08.2020, considered the challenge raised to the Ordinance, inter alia on the grounds of legislative competence, arbitrariness, retrospectivity, non-publication, procedural infirmities, and repugnancy with the extant MCI Regulations. It is submitted that while considering Regulation 13(2) of the Medical Council of India Regulations On Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MCI Regulations 1997’ for short) and the amended Regulation 14(1)(b) of the MCI Regulations, 2000, the co-ordinate Bench has held that Regulation 13(2) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 mandated valuation by four examiners. It was noticed that the respondent University has adopted the system of valuation by four examiners in respect of practical examinations carrying 20% of the total marks for under graduates but, provides for evaluation only by two examiners for the Theory papers, which is in contravention to the Regulations of the MCI. Therefore, the writ petitions were allowed while quashing the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019. A mandamus was issued to the respondent-University to cause valuation for all Theory papers of the UG students, by a set of four examiners, in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the MCI Regulations, 1997. The benefit of the judgment was directed to be extended to all similarly circumstanced students who had failed in the Theory papers on the basis of assessment under Double Valuation Method. 6. Following the directions given in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta (supra), the respondent-University issued a circular dated 01.09.2020 notifying the students willing to seek for two more valuations to submit their request on or before 10.09.2020 by 5.00 p.m. to Registrar (Evaluation). 6. Following the directions given in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta (supra), the respondent-University issued a circular dated 01.09.2020 notifying the students willing to seek for two more valuations to submit their request on or before 10.09.2020 by 5.00 p.m. to Registrar (Evaluation). One more circular was issued on 14.09.2020, calling upon students who had not submitted the request as per the previous circular, giving them one more opportunity to submit their request on or before 16.09.2020, by 12:00 noon. It is submitted that the respondent-University conducted two additional valuations of over 14,000 answer papers in compliance of the directions issued by this Court. However, the respondent-University notified on 13.10.2020, the new Amendment to Ordinance stating that all answer scripts of UG course shall be subjected to Digital Valuation by four evaluators in which 50% of them by Internal Examiners and 50% by External Examiners of different universities other than RGUHS and preferably by evaluators from outside the State as prescribed by MCI. It further provided that the average of the total marks awarded by the four evaluators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest value, shall be considered for computation of the results. It specifically provided that the marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained. It is this provision that there will be no further valuation, which is under attack. 7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Arun Kumar K., submitted that the notification dated 13.10.2020, has been impugned in these writ petitions and a declaration is sought to quash the Notification/Ordinance on the ground that the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 having been struck down by this Court, there could not be any amendment brought to such Ordinance. Secondly, it is submitted that in terms of Section 35(3)(b) of The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RGUHS Act, 1994’ for short) the Syndicate of the University is required to consult the Academic Council while making an Ordinance in matters relating to conduct or setting of standards of examination. It is submitted that the impugned Ordinance has been issued without compliance of such requirement. 8. It is submitted that the impugned Ordinance has been issued without compliance of such requirement. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., submitted that the sufferance of the students sought to be eschewed by this Court in the case of Sri Neelesh Mehta, has obviously not had the desired effect. The grievance of the petitioners in Sri Neelesh Mehta's case was that there was no provision for revaluation and they had sought for valuation/ revaluation on par with the PG students. It is submitted that the PG course students are given the benefit of valuation by four examiners and deviation valuation by a th examiner. It is submitted that the respondent-University is hell bent upon discriminating between the UG and PG students. Noticing this discrimination and difference in treatment of the UG and PG students who were governed by the same provision of law as provided in the MCI Regulations, this Court had struck down the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019. The learned Senior Counsel while placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cellular Operators Association of India and Others Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others, (2016) 7 SCC 703 , submitted that in matters of subordinate legislation, where there is manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness, the same is required to be struck down. 9. Learned Counsel Sri Abishek Malipatil, appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that the requirement of the Syndicate of the University consulting the Academic Council in the matter of conduct or setting of standards of examination while making an Ordinance in terms of Section 35(3)(b) of the RGUHS Act, 1994 was considered by this Court in the case of Dr. Prashant P. Mannur and others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others, in W.P.Nos.25680-682/2009 and connected matters, decided on 05.10.2009. It was held that consultation with the Academic Council is mandatory and consultation contemplated under the said provisions is not a formal consultation but an effective consultation. The learned Counsel would further bring to the notice of this Court that one more Ordinance dated 01.02.2021, has been issued by the respondent-University, subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions. It was held that consultation with the Academic Council is mandatory and consultation contemplated under the said provisions is not a formal consultation but an effective consultation. The learned Counsel would further bring to the notice of this Court that one more Ordinance dated 01.02.2021, has been issued by the respondent-University, subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions. It is submitted that as per the new Ordinance dated 01.02.2021, it shall have effect on examinations conducted on or after 01.02.2021, and the system is reverted back to the Double Valuation Method, while deviation valuation is provided by a 3rd examiner, wherever the difference of the marks awarded by the two examiners is 15% or more. The learned Counsel, therefore submits that the petitioners have been left high and dry, inspite of the fact that the erratic valuation showing variation of more than 15% is conspicuously demonstrated and deviation valuation is being denied to the petitioners. 10. Learned Counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that the National Medical Commission has issued an advisory dated 28.01.2021 relaxing the provision of appointment of External Examiners in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is submitted that as per the advisory, the requirement of having two External Examiners has been done away with and discretion is given to the Universities to provide for evaluation by two examiners as per the Central Assessment Program (CAP) of the concerned university. Although the amendment was made applicable for MBBS students admitted for the academic year 2019-20 onwards, universities are permitted to adopt the clause in respect of students of the academic year prior to 2019-20 also. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri N.K. Ramesh, appearing for the respondent-University submits that although the impugned notification dated 13.10.2020, says it is an amendment to the Ordinance, it should be read as promulgation of Ordinance in terms of Section 35(1) of RGUHS Act, 1994. It is further submitted that when the impugned notification dated 13.10.2020 was issued, the Vice-Chancellor has exercised the special powers under Section 13(2), exercising the powers conferred on the Advisory Council, in terms of Section 35(3)(b). 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that it is a well settled position of law that unless the Regulations specifically provided for revaluation of an answer script, no Court can direct revaluation of an answer script. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that it is a well settled position of law that unless the Regulations specifically provided for revaluation of an answer script, no Court can direct revaluation of an answer script. In this regard, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the following decisions : 1. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs. Parithosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 27 ; 2. Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 ; 3. Moazam Shah Khan and Others Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others, ILR 2002 KAR 1146; and 4. Mr. Vishnuram Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Another, (unreported); W.P.No.31195/2016 and connected matters, decided on 05.07.2016. 13. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 14. The basic question that requires consideration in these matters is whether the impugned notification dated 13.10.2020, issued by the Registrar (Evaluation) could sustain judicial review, as it is alleged by the petitioners that there is non-compliance of Section 35(3)(b) of the RGUHS Act, 1994. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent-University submitted that there has been a mistake in the impugned notification, where, instead of stating 'promulgation of Ordinance' by the Syndicate, it has been wrongly stated as 'Amendment to the Ordinance'. It has been stated in the additional statement of objections filed by the respondent-University that since this Court struck down the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019, by order dated 10.08.2020 in W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters, with a direction to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners and such other similarly circumstanced students who had failed in the examination, by conducting two more evaluation so as to bring the process of evaluation in consonance with Regulation 13(2) of the MCI Regulations 1997, additional valuations were conducted, as directed. However, the next examinations were scheduled to commence in October, 2020 and since there was a vacuum created on the Ordinance being struck down, the Vice-Chancellor had to exercise the special powers conferred under Section 13(2) of the RGUHS Act, 1994. It has been stated that the Vice-Chancellor submitted a proposal to the Syndicate on 09.10.2020, in the 152nd meeting of the Syndicate, the Syndicate considered the proposal and resolved to approve promulgation of the impugned Ordinance. 15. It has been stated that the Vice-Chancellor submitted a proposal to the Syndicate on 09.10.2020, in the 152nd meeting of the Syndicate, the Syndicate considered the proposal and resolved to approve promulgation of the impugned Ordinance. 15. The explanation sought to be offered by the respondent-University, cannot cure the defect in the matter of issuance of an Ordinance. The Ordinance has been issued by the Syndicate in terms of Section 35(1) of the RGUHS Act, 1994. Even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University is accepted that the act of the Syndicate in issuing the notification is not an amendment to the Ordinance, but it is a promulgation of a new Ordinance, there is nothing in the preamble of the notification which would suggest that in the matter of consultation with the Academic Council as required under Section 35(3)(b), the Vice-Chancellor has exercised the power conferred on the Academic Council by invoking the special powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2). 16. Be that as it may, if the Vice-Chancellor invoked the special powers under Section 13(2) exercising the powers vested on Academic Council, the question that would arise for consideration is whether the Vice-Chancellor could exercise such powers, in the matter of promulgation of Ordinances which is a subordinate legislation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., subordinate legislation should not be manifestly arbitrary. In the case of Cellular Operators Association of India (supra), Their Lordships have noticed two judgments in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304 and Sharma Transport Vs. State of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188 , where it was held that the tests of arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that delegated legislation can be struck down such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated with the law making power. Moreover, this Court has already considered as to whether the consultation process stipulated under Section 35(3)(b) is mandatory or directory. It has been held that the consultation with the Academic Council is mandatory and the consultation contemplated under the said provision is not a formal consultation but an effective consultation. Moreover, this Court has already considered as to whether the consultation process stipulated under Section 35(3)(b) is mandatory or directory. It has been held that the consultation with the Academic Council is mandatory and the consultation contemplated under the said provision is not a formal consultation but an effective consultation. There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Arun Kumar K., that the special powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) cannot be stretched to enable the Vice-Chancellor to exercise the powers and functions of the Academic Council, which is an expert body, more so, in the matter of promulgation of Ordinance or amendments to the Ordinance, in matters touching upon the conduct or setting standards of examination. The powers conferred under Section 13(1) on the Vice-Chancellor is to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the university and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the university. 17. However, it is a well settled principle of law that legislative powers cannot be delegated, unless specifically provided for. In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77, the Apex Court held, “that the necessity of legislature’s delegating its powers in favour of the executive is a part of legislative function. It is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole under Article 245 of the Constitution. Such delegation of power, however, cannot be wide, uncanalised or unguided. The legislature while delegating such power is required to lay down the criteria or standard so as to enable the delegatee to act within the framework of the statute. A subordinate legislation which is not backed up by any statutory guideline under the substantive law and opposed to the enforcement of a legal right, would not be valid. The principle on which the power of legislation is to be exercised is required to be disclosed. It is also trite that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated. The procedural powers are, therefore, normally left to be exercised by the executive by reason of a delegated legislation.” 18. His Lordship Justice M.N.Venkatachalaiah, as he then was a Judge of this Court, in the case of M/s. Jyothi Home Industries Vs. It is also trite that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated. The procedural powers are, therefore, normally left to be exercised by the executive by reason of a delegated legislation.” 18. His Lordship Justice M.N.Venkatachalaiah, as he then was a Judge of this Court, in the case of M/s. Jyothi Home Industries Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1986 KAR 3831, heading a Division Bench held, “the three principles that govern delegation are: first, that Doctrine of “Constitutional Trust” renders it imperative that the essential legislative functions shall be discharged by the Legislature alone. This it cannot delegate or dis-own. Second, is the rule, which flows as corollary to the first, that while the essentials of legislation or policy cannot be delegated, the non-essentials, however numerous and significant they be, may be made over to appropriate-agencies, such agency being always subject to the authority and control over the principal and the exercise of such delegated power can be corrected by the principal. The second-rule is not inconsistent with, but is only a corollary of, the first. The difference is between the making of the law in the sense of promulgating a binding rule of conduct and making provisions for executing it. Thirdly, that even if there being a delegation, parliamentary-control over delegated-legislation should be a “living continuity as a constitutional necessity” by appropriate parliamentary watch-dogging and “laying” procedures.” 19. Further, in the case of Global Energy Ltd. Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2009) 15 SCC 570 , which has been referred to in the Cellular Operators Association case (supra), it was held that if the statute provides for pointless discretion to agency, it is in essence demolishing the accountable strand within the administrative process as the agency is not under obligation from an objective norm, which can enforce accountability in decision making process. It was further held that all law-making, be it in the context of delegated legislation or primary legislation, has to conform to the fundamental tenets of transparency and openness on one hand and responsiveness and accountability on the other. 20. When we analyse the impugned Ordinance in the light of the legal position as enunciated above, it is clear that the special powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) cannot extend to taking over the power of the Syndicate to promulgate Ordinances under Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994. 20. When we analyse the impugned Ordinance in the light of the legal position as enunciated above, it is clear that the special powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(2) cannot extend to taking over the power of the Syndicate to promulgate Ordinances under Section 35 of the RGUHS Act, 1994. At any rate, by invoking Section 13(2) of the RGUHS Act, the Vice-Chancellor is definitely not entitled to take over the consultation process of an expert body viz., Academic Council, which is required to give its expert opinion under Section 35(3)(b), essential for promulgating an Ordinance. 21. Consequently, this Court proceeds to hold that the impugned Ordinance dated 13.10.2020, is without authority of law and therefore, it is required to be quashed. 22. In Dr. Menaka Mohan’s case (W.P.No.48194-48198/2018 and connected matters, D.D.21.12.2018), the Under Graduate students of Medical and Dental courses, along with students of medical PG course (May-June, 2018) and Dental PG courses (May-June, 2018) approached this Court to send their answer papers for revaluation on the ground that the difference of marks awarded by two evaluators in the case of UG courses and the difference of marks awarded by four evaluators in the case of PG courses, though less than 15% of the maximum marks prescribed, the requirement being that the difference between the evaluators must be more than 15%. The contention of the students that answer scripts were required to be referred to the third valuator since the difference between the marks awarded by the two valuators was more than 15% was upheld and the contention of the respondent-University that the prescribed percentage difference is not as against the two valuations inter se, but as against the maximum marks prescribed for the papers, was negated. The writ petition was allowed in part and a mandamus was issued to the respondent-University to send such of the answer papers wherein the percentage difference amongst the valuation of the two evaluators in the UG courses was 15% or more, for third valuation. 23. In Sri Neelesh Mehta’s case (W.P.No.31335/2019 and connected matters, D.D.10.08.2020), a challenge was raised to the Ordinance governing the valuation of the UG students on the ground of discrimination, since the answer scripts of the PG students was evaluated by four examiners and provision was made for fifth evaluation also, while, in the case of UG students, valuation was done by two evaluators. The co-ordinate Bench held that the Ordinance governing the UG courses is apparently repugnant to the provisions of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, promulgated by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and therefore, it is liable to be struck down on that sole ground. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-University that throughout the country, many universities have adopted only Double Valuation Method since very long and the same method has been followed by the university too ab inception with no complaints whatsoever from the MCI or the students. The co-ordinate Bench went on to hold that despite uniform mandatory legal prescription, university could not have had one standard for under graduates and another for post graduates; to make its case worse, the university has been following four valuation method for under graduates in practical examinations, which are only for a frugal 20% of total marks prescribed for the course, while for the Theory paper comprising of the remaining 80%, only two valuations were prescribed. 24. Consequently, the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 was quashed and set aside. The respondent-University was directed to cause valuation of all Theory answer scripts of all the petitioners by a set of four evaluators, in terms of Regulation 13(2) of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. The benefit was extended to all similarly situated students. Liberty was also reserved to the respondent-University to re-promulgate the Ordinance. 25. Consequent to the striking down of the previous Ordinance dated 29.03.2019, the amended Ordinance dated 13.10.2020 was notified, providing for evaluation of all answer scripts of UG courses by “Digital Evaluation” by four evaluators in which 50% of them by Internal Examiner and 50% by External Examiners of different universities other than RGUHS. What is noticeable is that the impugned Ordinance once again sought to make a deviation when compared to the Ordinance governing the PG students, where provision is made for fifth valuation, if the difference of percentage of marks between the four evaluators was 15% or more. Under the impugned Ordinance governing the UG students, it was specifically provided that the marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be the final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained. 26. Under the impugned Ordinance governing the UG students, it was specifically provided that the marks awarded and the results declared after general valuation shall be the final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained. 26. It needs to be reiterated that the co-ordinate Bench had struck down the previous Ordinance on the ground of discrimination, on the ground that there cannot be different sets of provisions, one for UG students and another for PG students, both flowing from the provisions of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. When a direction was issued by the co-ordinate Bench that the University may re-promulgate an Ordinance similar to that of PG students, the impugned Ordinance was promulgated once again violating the said directions. 27. The provision for having a third valuation in cases of Double Valuation Method and having a fifth valuation in cases of Four Valuation Method is a well thought of safety measure. The very fact that difference of more than 15% indicated erratic valuation and therefore, the need for sending such answer scripts for another evaluation has a moderating effect and provided solace to students who were awarded marks which had a huge gulf. Therefore, prima facie, the University could not have done away with the safety measure. 28. Several instances have been brought to the notice of this Court in the writ petitions magnifying the need for a fifth valuation. One of the petitioners has been awarded-20, 56, 35, 53 by the four valuators. The lowest being 20 and the highest being 56, the student has every reason to cry hoarse that the valuation is erratic in nature. If an average is taken in this case, the student gets 41 and therefore, he fails. On the other hand, if the paper is sent for fifth valuation, in terms of the Ordinance governing PG students, the least of the marks out of the five evaluators should be left out of consideration and the average of the other four should be taken into consideration. In such scenario, the student has a better chance of succeeding. The learned Counsels for the petitioners have pointed out to the fact that all the petitioners are more or less in the same situation. 29. In such scenario, the student has a better chance of succeeding. The learned Counsels for the petitioners have pointed out to the fact that all the petitioners are more or less in the same situation. 29. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-University that providing for four evaluations fulfills the requirement under the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, and there is nothing in the said Regulations compelling the University to have a fifth valuation, cannot be accepted. The basic premise on which the previous Ordinance was struck down by the co-ordinate Bench was that there cannot be a discrimination in providing for valuation of the answer scripts of a PG student or a UG student. So long as there is provision for four evaluations and a fifth evaluation for PG students, similar provisions are required to be made use of in case of the UG students also. 30. On the other hand, if the National Medical Commission has issued fresh Ordinance/Circular/Notification reverting to the system of Double Evaluation Method, while providing for deviation valuation by a third examiner, and although the same would have effect on examinations conducted on or after 01.02.2021, the said system can also be adopted in the case of the petitioners herein. The said Circular, though issued in view of the COVID-19 Pandemic, leaves it to the discretion of the universities to adopt the same in respect of students of the earlier semesters. Nevertheless, since it is an admitted fact that four valuations have already been done, there is a need for sending the answer scripts of students for fifth valuation or deviation valuation, where the difference in the valuation is 15% or more. 31. Before parting, this Court deems it fit to remind the respondent-University and the National Medical Commission that His Lordship Krishna S. Dixit J., had made thought provoking observations in the matter of digital evaluation of answer papers and the need for model key answers. The petitioners had raised objection as to the level of efficacy and transparency in the matter of Digital Valuation. The students had pressed for introduction of the concept of Model Key Answers on the ground that it would reduce the vagaries of valuation and evaluators by providing some yardstick. The petitioners had raised objection as to the level of efficacy and transparency in the matter of Digital Valuation. The students had pressed for introduction of the concept of Model Key Answers on the ground that it would reduce the vagaries of valuation and evaluators by providing some yardstick. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-University that matters relating to examination, valuation of papers and modalities of valuation, fall within the exclusive domain of the campus and ordinarily Courts do not take up a roving enquiry, more so, when they relate to the fast growing Medical Science and Technology was noticed. Regard was also had to the explanations given by the Registrar (Evaluation) on the difficulties in immediately implementing the system of Model Key Answers. The co-ordinate Bench noticed that the University was not averse to welcoming expert views from the community of the students for improving the system as such. The manner in which the impugned Ordinance was issued, without seeking the opinion of an expert body like the Advisory Council, does not augur well for the future of medical education. While framing policies, opinion of the experts should be sought and the grievance of the student community should also be heard. A policy having broad vision would be least susceptible to challenge. Therefore, this Court takes this opportunity to once again remind the respondent-University and the National Medical Commission to ponder over the observations and come up with a policy which would be in the best interest of medical education. 32. As a bottom line, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance put forth by the petitioners requires to be redressed as they are genuine. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following : ORDER 1. The writ petitions are allowed. 2. The "Amendment to Ordinance Governing Valuation of Answer Scripts of MBBS Course (RS-3 Scheme)" notified on 13.10.2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. The respondent-RGUHS is hereby directed to apply the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of the respondent-University, identify all the cases where there is a difference of 15% or more in the four valuations and send them for fifth valuation. The exercise shall be restricted to failed students only. 4. 3. The respondent-RGUHS is hereby directed to apply the formula as provided in the Ordinance governing the PG students of the respondent-University, identify all the cases where there is a difference of 15% or more in the four valuations and send them for fifth valuation. The exercise shall be restricted to failed students only. 4. Declare the results applying the provisions governing PG students of the respondent-University, after the fifth valuation and proceed to issue marks card accordingly. 5. The entire exercise shall be completed well before the commencement of the next year examinations which is tentatively scheduled to commence during first week of March 2021. It is ordered accordingly.