ORDER : (N. MALA, J.) The father of the 2 nd petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the examination result dated 21.11.2024 and for consequential direction to the 4 th and 5 th respondent to declare the result as “Pass” in view of the guidelines framed for valuation by the 1 st respondent. 2. The 2 nd petitioner joined the under graduation degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery in Sri Jeyendra Saraswathi Ayurveda College and Hospital in the year 2018. The 2 nd petitioner attended and wrote his supplementary examination in the subject namely Shalya Tantra (General Surgery) bearing subject code AY 403 in September, 2024. The 2 nd petitioner secured 28 marks in the Text-1, and was declared “fail” in the supplementary examination. The 1 st petitioner sent representation to the respondents 3 and 5 on 12.01.2025, requesting them to furnish the marks scored by the 2 nd petitioner in all the three evaluations. The 1 st petitioner also submitted a representation to the respondents 3 to 5 on 28.01.2025, requesting them to declare the result as 'pass' in view of the guidelines passed by the 1 st respondent. As the 1 st petitioners representations were not considered, the petitioners have filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed detail counter stating inter alia, that the guidelines regarding the double valuation system were notified in February, 2022 and subsequently the guidelines were issued regarding the same on 27.07.2022 for implementation. According to the respondents, as IMCC Regulations 2016, were silent on the valuation process of papers, the University was empowered to frame its own guidelines in respect of the same at its own discretion. The respondents further stated that, as the 2 nd petitioner joined the B.A.M.S course in the year 2018-19, IMCC 2022 regulations were not applicable to the 2 nd petitioner, as the said regulations were made effective from 2021-2022 batch. The respondents 1 and 2 therefore stated that the writ petition was devoid of merits and the same deserved to be dismissed. 4. The respondents 3 to 5 filed a detailed counter stating inter alia, that the 5 th respondent college was governed by rules and regulations framed by National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), its statutory regulatory authority. 4. The respondents 3 to 5 filed a detailed counter stating inter alia, that the 5 th respondent college was governed by rules and regulations framed by National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), its statutory regulatory authority. The respondents stated that in the absence of any guidelines for double valuation of answer papers by the 1 st respondent, all the Universities were left to frame their own regulations. The 3 rd respondent framed its own rules/guidelines for B.A.M.S students who joined prior to 2021-2022. As per the said guidelines, for the students who joined prior to 2021-2022 batch, all papers were subjected to double valuation and when the difference between the two valuations exceeded 15%, they were to be placed before 3 rd valuer and the marks awarded by the 3 rd valuer were considered final. As several issues arose because of the double valuation system adopted by the various Universities, the issue was referred to the 1 st respondent which finally issued guidelines vide letter dated 27.07.2022, applying the same for the students of 2021-2022 batch onwards. The respondent stated that the 5 th respondent College and Hospital followed these guidelines from 2021-2022 onwards. The respondents after referring to the marks scored by the 2 nd petitioner in all exams, submitted that the double valuation guidelines of the 1 st respondent were applicable only to the University examinations of 2021-2022 batch, and as the 2 nd petitioner belonged to 2018-2019 batch, the aforesaid rules were not applicable to the 2 nd petitioner. The rules and regulations of the University at the relevant point of time were only applicable to the 2 nd petitioner. The respondents submitted that as the difference in marks on double evaluation was more than 15%, the 2 nd petitioner's answer sheets were referred to an external examiner, who awarded 28 marks and therefore as per the University rules/guidelines on double valuation dated 05.06.2024, the results were declared on the basis of the marks awarded by the 3 rd examiner which were final. The respondents therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and same deserved to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the valuation guidelines were framed by the 3 rd respondent University only on 05.06.2024, and therefore the same were not applicable to the 2 nd petitioner. The respondents therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and same deserved to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the valuation guidelines were framed by the 3 rd respondent University only on 05.06.2024, and therefore the same were not applicable to the 2 nd petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the absence of any guidelines/regulations by either the 1 st respondent or the 3 rd respondent at the relevant time, the practise hitherto followed by the University of taking the average scores of double valuation as final marks ought to have been followed. The learned counsel therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed. 6. The respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter filed by them and submitted that the writ petition deserved no merits and hence was liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard all the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record. With the consent of all the parties the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 8. The facts of the case are undisputed, the 2 nd petitioner joined B.A.M.S course in the 5 th respondent college in the year 2018. The 2 nd petitioner in the month of September, 2024 wrote his supplementary examination in the subject namely, Shalya Tantra (General Surgery) bearing exam code AY 403. The 2 nd petitioner results were declared on 21.11.2024, by the 4 th respondent and the 2 nd petitioner was declared 'fail', as he secured 28 marks in Text-1. Whereas, the petitioner's claim that in the absence of any guidelines by the 1 st respondent or the 3 rd respondent at the relevant point of time, (i.e) for batches prior to 2021-2022, the practise hitherto followed by the University of adopting the average of the scores in the double valuation ought to have been awarded to the 2 nd petitioner, the 3 rd respondent claims that in the absence of guidelines by the 1 st respondent, the 3 rd respondent's guidelines, which it framed on 05.06.2024 were applicable. Under the said guideline, if the difference in total marks in the two valuations exceeded 15% of the total marks, the paper was to be referred for third evaluation (external examiner) and the marks awarded by the third examiner was to be considered as final. Under the said guideline, if the difference in total marks in the two valuations exceeded 15% of the total marks, the paper was to be referred for third evaluation (external examiner) and the marks awarded by the third examiner was to be considered as final. The 3 rd respondent stated that there were no guidelines framed by the 1 st respondent for the relevant period and it was only in the year 2022, that the guidelines were framed, making them effective from 2021-2022 batch and therefore, the double valuation method adopted by the 3 rd respondent could not be faulted. 9. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the valuation guidelines issued by the 3 rd respondent on 05.06.2024, are applicable to the 2 nd petitioner. While adopting the guidelines of NCISM dated 27.07.2022, for the batch 2021-2022 onwards, the 3 rd respondent issued double valuation guidelines for the batches prior to 2021-2022. The 3 rd respondent as regards the students who joined before Academic year 2021-2022, laid the guidelines to the effect that the double valuation of the answer sheets would be undertaken and if the difference of valuation exceeded 15% of the total marks, the same would be referred to a third examiner (external examiner) and the marks awarded by the third examiner would be final. The respondents did not deny the contention of the petitioner that before the University framed the guidelines on 05.06.2024, the practise followed for double valuation by the University was to award the average marks of the double valuation. Therefore as rightly contended by the petitioner's counsel, the Universities guidelines dated 05.06.2024 could not be applied retrospectively to the 2 nd petitioner depriving him of the benefit of the practise hitherto followed of taking the average marks of double evaluation. It is undisputed that if the average of marks of double evaluation are adopted, then the 2 nd petitioner would pass the paper viz Shalya Tantra (General Surgery). Therefore, in my view, the respondents could not have applied the valuation guidelines dated 05.06.2024, retrospectively to the 2 nd petitioner deviating from the practise hitherto followed which was more advantageous to the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, the respondents could not have applied the valuation guidelines dated 05.06.2024, retrospectively to the 2 nd petitioner deviating from the practise hitherto followed which was more advantageous to the petitioner. The 2 nd petitioner belonged to 2018-2019 batch, and in the absence of any regulations/guidelines by the 1 st or 3 rd respondents, the guidelines/regulations issued by the 3 rd respondent on 05.06.2024, could not be applied to the petitioner retrospectively, depriving him of the benefit of taking the average of the scores on double evaluation for the purpose of awarding marks, which was the practice followed by the 3 rd respondent University prior to 05.06.2024. In my view therefore the regulations/guidelines of the 3 rd respondent dated 05.06.2024 are not applicable to the petitioner and only the practise hitherto followed by the 3 rd respondent of taking the average marks of the double evaluation alone would be applicable to the 2 nd petitioner. I therefore find merit in the writ petition. 10. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the result declared as 'fail' to the 2 nd petitioner on the basis of the guidelines of the 3 rd respondent dated 05.06.2024, cannot be sustained and therefore the same is quashed. A direction is issued to the 4 th respondent to take the average of the marks obtained in the double valuation and declare the results of the 2 nd petitioner as “Pass” and issue the marks certificate within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.