JUDGMENT : V. KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ. These appeals impugne the order in the writ petitions as under: Sl. No. Writ Appeal No. Impugned Writ Petitions 1 WA No.448/2025 (EDN-RES) Order dated 24.02.2025 in WP Nos. 3438/2025, 3443/2025, 3445/2025, 3464/2025, 3489/2025, 3525/2025, 3539/2025, 3554/2025, 3556/2025, 3671/2025, 4071/2025, 4089/2025, 4090/2025 and 4603/2025 2 WA No.465/2025 (EDN-RES) Order dated 24.02.2025 in WP Nos. 3438/2025, 3443/2025, 3445/2025, 3464/2025, 3489/2025, 3525/2025, 3539/2025, 3554/2025, 3556/2025, 3671/2025, 4071/2025, 4089/2025, 4090/2025 and 4603/2025 3 WA No.597/2025 (EDN-EX) Order dated 12.03.2025 in WP No.7220/2025 4 WA No.602/2025 (EDN-RES) Order dated 12.03.2025 in WP No.6734/2025 5 WA No.603/2025 (EDN-EX) Order dated 12.03.2025 in WP No.6113/2025 6 WA No.604/2025 (EDN-EX) Order dated 12.03.2025 in WP No.6737/2025 7 WA No.628/2025 (EDN-RES) Order dated 12.03.2025 in WP No.6758/2025 8 WA No.630/2025 (EDN-RES) Order dated 12.03.2025 in WP No.6127/2025 9 WA No.654/2025 (EDN-RES) Order dated 20.03.2025 in WP No.6742/2025 The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions by stating in paragraphs No.8 to 10 as under: “8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises for consideration is: "Whether rounding off at a percentage level would be akin to providing grace marks and whether the benefit of the order passed in Dr. Guruprasad's case and other similarly placed petitioners would be applicable to the petitioners as well?" 9. The petitioners are post graduate medical students having failed by a fraction of percentage as stated supra, are knocking at the doors of this Court inter alia contending that the said fraction ought to have been rounded off to the next whole number which would resultantly pass the petitioners. Under the PGMER-2023 Regulation, Regulation 8.4 stipulates that a student should secure a minimum of 40% in each paper with an aggregate of 50% in theory paper and to secure minimum total marks of 200 / 400 for theory and practical plus viva 200/400. It is noticed by this court that the marks obtained by the petitioners, when turned into percentage is arriving at 49.75%, 49.50% and 49.25%. The situation being such that though the petitioners have obtained 197, 198 and 199 out of 200 in theory the percentage, which is arrived is in decimal. It is noticed by this court that the marks obtained by the petitioners, when turned into percentage is arriving at 49.75%, 49.50% and 49.25%. The situation being such that though the petitioners have obtained 197, 198 and 199 out of 200 in theory the percentage, which is arrived is in decimal. In the case of DR.GURUPRASAD stated supra though the decision was rendered during Covid pandemic, the Ordinance dated 29.03.2019 permitted to round off to the next full figure and this court, in DR.GURUPRASAD'S case did not take into account the Covid-19 pandemic, but what was considered by this court is the arithmetical calculation. The Regulations, which was later changed in the year 2020 has now been withdrawn, it is contended by the respondent-RGUHS that rounding off would be akin to granting grace marks. The rounding off a percentage is a matter of arithmetical calculation and not equivalent to granting of grace marks. The PGMER-2023 Regulation does not explicitly prohibit rounding off decimal values in percentage calculation. The percentage to be rounded off to the next whole number is a part of standard mathematical practice. The petitioners who have obtained point percentage, the standard arithmetic rule dictates rounding off to 50%, which is a mathematical adjustment. 10. The point percentage obtained by the students i.e., 0.25%, 0.50% and 0.75% is the marks, which has been obtained and at any rate it cannot be taken away by holding that it has to be 49% and not 50%. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered in favour of the petitioners and the writ petitions succeed and the petitioners marks in theory examination is rounded off from 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75% to 50% and the respondent University is directed to consider the petitioners as 'Pass' and issue necessary result sheet accordingly.” 2. At the outset we may state here that, Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents No.2, 5 and 12 in WA No.448/2025; Smt. Sumana Baliga, Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 3, 4, 6 to 11, 13 and 14 in WA No.448/2025 and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025, 604/2025, 628/2025 and 654/2025 state that, they appear for all the respondents who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in these appeals and as such, they can be heard. Abhishek Malipatil, Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025, 604/2025, 628/2025 and 654/2025 state that, they appear for all the respondents who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in these appeals and as such, they can be heard. If that be so, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeals have been finally heard. 3. The grievance of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was with regard to inaction on the part of the appellants herein being National Medical Commission (‘NMC’ for short) and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (‘University’ for short) in not rounding off the percentage to the next whole number. 4. The case of the respondent-students before the learned Single Judge was primarily by relying upon the following decisions passed by this Court, wherein directions have been issued to the University to round off the percentage to the next integer based on the ordinance governing the Post-Graduate (PG) including PG diploma and super speciality and subscript evaluation promoted by the notification dated 29.12.2023: i. Dr. Guruprasad -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University [WP No.11348/2020 , decided on 20.10.2020 ] ii. Dr. B. Nagadivya -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Others [WP No.17479/2021 , decided on 30.09.2021 ] iii. Rajiv Gandhi University -Vs.- Dr. Naga Divya [RP No.384/2021 in WP No.17479/2021 decided on 08.03.2021 ] iv. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Neelesh Mehta and Another [WA No.547/2021 , decided on 18.06.2021 5. The case of the appellant-University before the learned Single Judge was that, the respondent-Students have failed to secure minimum 200/400 marks in PG examination held in January 2025 and by seeking a rounding off, they are literally seeking grace marks of 1 to 3 marks in the form of rounding off of the percentage from 49.25% (197/200 marks), 49.50% (198/200 marks) and 49.75% (199/200 marks) to 50% (200/400 marks) which is impermissible. It was also their case that, the judgments on which reliance has been placed were based on the decision of the syndicate of the University on 12.11.2020, which was to overcome the situation arisen due to COVID-19 pandemic, whereby the University resolved to award rounding off, of percentage to the students and as such, the judgments are not applicable. In this regard, reliance was placed on the order of this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -Vs.- Dr. In this regard, reliance was placed on the order of this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) to contend that this Court has held the rounding off was allowed as circumstances were not normal, as the entire country was under lockdown and the PG students were frontline workers, who were practically doing COVID duties round the clock. Large number of doctors have lost their lives. It is in this background, the syndicate of the University has taken a policy decision dated 12.11.2020 and as such, the judgments on which reliance had been placed are not applicable. Submissions: 6. The submission of Sri. Nuruddin Khetty, learned counsel appearing for National Medical Council (‘NMC’ for short) in WA No.465/2025 is that, the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous being contrary to law and facts and to the materials placed before the Court. According to him, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that, Regulations of 2023 clearly stipulates that in order to declare as ‘pass’ in PG examination, a candidate has to secure minimum marks of 200/400 in theory component and minimum marks of 200/400 in practicals plus viva- voce component and there is no provision for awarding grace/additional marks. He stated that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that Regulation 8.4 of Regulations of 2023 stipulates the criteria for valuation of theory papers along with computation of result. It also states that, the grace marks are not permitted in theory or practical in PG examinations. According to him, the regulation contemplates rounding off of marks to nearest integer (whole number) in theory component at one stage i.e., during computation of result and the respondent- students have failed to secure 200 marks despite rounding up of marks in decimals as per Regulations of 2023. The respondent-students have, after rounding off decimal marks to the next highest number as per Regulations of 2023, secured 197, 198 and 199 marks and not 200 marks, as such, they were declared ‘fail’. This provision in Regulations of 2023 has been made only to enable that upon totaling the marks, there is no decimal such as 197.25, 198.5 or 199.75. This provision in Regulations of 2023 has been made only to enable that upon totaling the marks, there is no decimal such as 197.25, 198.5 or 199.75. Since the rounding off has been done once already, the total marks have to be taken into account and added and there is no question of rounding off once again. There is no reference to percentage deliberately so as to avoid rounding off. According to him, the learned Single Judge has failed to understand that, by changing the requirement for pass from 200 marks out of 400 to 50%, the learned Single Judge has allowed 3 grace marks be given to the students, which is uncalled for and for which the Courts have held that they have neither the competency nor power to do so as the granting or otherwise is in the domain of the regulator. He also stated, the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that, the judgment in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) did not take into account COVID-19 pandemic but arithmetic calculations, which according to him, is not a correct interpretation of the said judgment. He also stated that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that, the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra), held that the syndicate’s decision dated 12.11.2020 to implement the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) for rounding off of percentage should be extended to all examinations held during COVID-19 in respect of PG course by appreciating the fact that, the PG students undergoing PG courses were frontline workers and practically doing COVID duties round the clock and large number of doctors have lost their lives and in respect of the same, no doctor has denied the treatment to a patient suffering from COVID-19. In that sense, the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) or the later judgments/orders were in the facts of that case and cannot have application to the facts which arises for consideration in this batch of appeals as there was no COVID situation in January 2025. He states, the present appeals filed by the appellant-NMC need to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 7. The submission of Sri. He states, the present appeals filed by the appellant-NMC need to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 7. The submission of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-University (in all the appeals) is primarily that, the learned Single Judge has clearly erred in coming to the conclusion in the common impugned order dated 24.02.2025 that the respondent- Students are entitled to the rounding off of the percentage. According to him, the principle of rounding off has been stipulated in Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations , 2023 (‘Regulations of 2023’ for short) issued by the NMC, wherein it is clearly laid down that, a candidate need to secure minimum marks of 200/400 in theory and minimum 200/400 in practicals plus viva-voce component and there is no provision for awarding grace/additional marks. In this regard, as was stated by Sri. Khetty for NMC, he has also drawn our attention to Regulation 8.4 which stipulates the criteria for valuation of theory papers along with computation of results. A reading of the said regulation makes it clear that, grace marks are not permitted in theory or practical in PG examinations. It is his submission that, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that, the Regulations of 2023 permits rounding off to the nearest integer in theory component at 1 st stage i.e., during computation of results and concedingly, the respondent-students have failed to secure 200 marks despite rounding off, of marks in decimals as per Regulations of 2023 by the appellant- University. In fact it is his submission that, the respondent-students after rounding off, of decimal marks to next higher number as per Regulations of 2023, have secured 197, 198 and 199 marks and not 200 marks and they were rightly declared as ‘fail’. According to him, the directions given by the learned Single Judge to round off the percentage, is not contemplated under the Regulations of 2023 at the time of computation of results. He stated that, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that, the appellant-University has not reduced the percentage of respondent-students to 49%, nor has reduced the marks of respondent-students in any manner while computation and declaration of results. He stated, even the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. He stated, even the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) to hold that, the Court did not take into account the COVID-19 pandemic and considered arithmetical calculations is clearly untenable. A related submission of Sri. Chinnappa is that, the Division Bench’s observation in the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) that syndicate’s decision dated 12.11.2020 to implement the order of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) for rounding off percentage should be extended to all examinations held during COVID in respect of PG course by appreciating the fact that the PG students undergoing then PG courses were frontline workers and practically doing COVID duties round the clock and large number of doctors have lost their lives, which is not the case herein. In fact, he laid stress on the fact that the Regulations of 2023 stipulate the rounding off, of decimal marks to nearest integer while computing the result and does not stipulate rounding up of percentage as the same amounts to awarding additional marks and that no grace marks are permitted in PG examination either for theory or for practical. The scope of Regulations of 2023 is only that, the rounding up of decimal marks to the nearest integer while computing the result and does not stipulate rounding up of percentage as the same amounts to awarding dual benefits and also awarding grace marks, which is impermissible. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences -Vs.- Dr. Haroon Adoni [WA No.909/2023 , decided on 02.11.2023 ] . Similarly he has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Taniya Malik -Vs.- Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [(2018) 14 SCC 129] and State of U.P. and Another -Vs.- Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others [ (2005) 2 SCC 10 ] He seeks setting aside of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 8. On the other hand, Sri. 8. On the other hand, Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 5 and 12 in WA No.448/2025 would justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to contend that, the issue in hand being covered by the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge and as such, the issue being no more res integra, the judgment of the learned Single Judge need no interference. He has drawn our attention to the judgments/orders which have been referred to by the learned Single Judge including the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) to contend that, the Court has interpreted the ordinance issued by the University. It is not a case that because of COVID reasons the benefit of rounding off was given to the petitioners therein. In support of his submissions, Sri. Reddy has drawn our attention to paragraph No.3(b) of the order of the learned Single Judge in Dr. Guruprasad ’s case (supra), wherein the Court has noted that, since the petitioner therein has arithmetically secured 49.75%, the said percentage/figure has to be rounded off to the next whole number, which is 50% as is contemplated in the ordinance. Similarly, he has drawn our attention to the order of the learned Single of the Delhi High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and Another -Vs.- All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 5102] wherein according to him, the Court has summed up the law on the rounding off by referring to the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Hyderabad -Vs.- Murali Mohana Reddy [Civil Appeals No.73/74 of 2019] , wherein the Court had directed adding of 1 mark or rounding off of 39.76% secured by the petitioner to 40%. In other words, it is his submission that, rounding off of number is not alien to the examination process and as such, there is no reason for the appellants to deny the benefit of rounding off as has been granted by the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr. In other words, it is his submission that, rounding off of number is not alien to the examination process and as such, there is no reason for the appellants to deny the benefit of rounding off as has been granted by the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra) to contend that, therein also the benefit has been given, wherein the Court has, on the basis of the policy decision taken by the syndicate on 12.11.2020 for rounding off the percentage, which aspect has been conceded by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-University, has not interfered with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Similarly, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Haroon Adoni (supra) to contend that, the benefit of rounding off was granted to the petitioner therein based on the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) and there is no reason to deny the benefit thereof to the respondent-students herein. In other words, the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the benefit to the respondent-students herein. He laid stress on the fact that, in appeal by the University (in that case), the Division Bench has rightly dismissed the same. Similarly, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Harsha -Vs.- State of Maharashtra and Another [2009 (5) Mah LJ 57] , wherein a reference was made by the Court to the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) to state that, the concept of rounding off is a well settled position of law and it would be inequitable and unjust to deprive a candidate to compete in entrance examination merely on the ground that he/she is not eligible having scored a fraction of mark less than 45% marks when it can be considered for rounding off. He has also relied upon another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Anup Prakash Vyas -Vs.- University of Pune and Another [(2013) 2 Mah LJ 630] , wherein the Division Bench has granted the benefit of rounding off. 9. Smt. Sumana Baliga makes similar submissions to lay stress on the fact that, the issue in hand is covered by the judgments/orders as referred to by Sri. Reddy in his submissions. 9. Smt. Sumana Baliga makes similar submissions to lay stress on the fact that, the issue in hand is covered by the judgments/orders as referred to by Sri. Reddy in his submissions. She submits that, the respondents cannot be denied the benefit of the judgments which clearly stipulates the rounding off the percentage to 50%. She stated that, it is not because of the COVID situation that the benefit thereof has been given to the candidates in those cases. It is a case, as arithmetically the respondent-students have secured the percentage of marks as stated above, the figure has to be rounded off to the next integer of 50%. She has also taken us through all the judgments as referred to by Sri. Reddy. 10. Similarly, Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 in WAs No.602/2025, 604/2025, 628/2025 and 654/2025 made a submission that the case of the respondent-students before the learned Single Judge was that, the Regulations of 2023 have no applicability to the examination in question, as their examination is governed by the Regulations of 2000 and which aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. He stated that, the Regulations of 2023 on which much reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellants, have no applicability insofar as the valuation of the answer sheet pursuant to the examination held in terms of notification issued in January 2023, as the syllabus and valuation of answer papers being part of the examination, have to be under one common regulation. He stated that, it was the syllabus of 2000 which governed the examination and hence, valuation need to be under the Regulations of 2000 and not 2023. He has also relied upon the judgments as relied upon by Sri. Reddy in support of his contention that, the issue having been settled by the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge and it is a case where on the strength of an interpretation to ordinance issued on 12.11.2020 by the University that this Court has settled the position of law with regard to rounding off, of the percentage, the benefit of the judgments having been rightly given by the learned Single Judge, no interference is called for. Analysis: 11. Analysis: 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the only issue which arises for consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge is justified in directing rounding off, of the percentage, in the facts, in favour of the respondent-students to the next integer of 50%? 12. Before we answer the issue which arises for consideration, it is necessary to reproduce the ordinance which was issued on 12.11.2020 by the University which was the subject matter of the judgments as relied upon by the learned Single Judge: “Hon'ble Vice Chancellor explained about the Hon'ble High Court direction regarding Writ petition No.11348 of 2020 (EDN-RES) and asked syndicate members to give opinion. Registrar (Eva) sought the opinion of syndicate whether to implement the Hon'ble High court order or to go for an appeal. Hon'ble members opined that it is better to implement the court order to benefit the student future. Hon'ble Vice Chancellor informed the members that there are three options (1) Considering the Covid-19 situation will implement this court order to benefit the student. (2) After implementing this court order, we will go for an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. (3) We will round off the marks at evaluator level, rounding off marks after taking average of 4+1 valuation and rounding off the marks after taking total average of the marks. By doing this, we will not give any options for students to go to the court. And informed the members to opine on this. Members opined to implement the third option prospectively to benefit the students. Dr. Jayakrishna H.J enquired about the recent High Court order filed by a student regarding the issue of Provisional Degree Certificate. Registrar (Eva) briefed about the same and informed the members that as per the statutes of RGUHS, Degree Certificate will be issued only after the Convocation Ceremony of that particular academic year and Provisional Degree Certificate is widely accepted all over the world and as per the court order for this particular student will include a line saying that PDC is as good as final degree certificate. Prof. Rajesh Shenoy requested to bring in changes in conduct of convocation ceremony to benefit the students Dr. Ravishankar Shetty and Dr. Prof. Rajesh Shenoy requested to bring in changes in conduct of convocation ceremony to benefit the students Dr. Ravishankar Shetty and Dr. GR Chandrashekar opined that the statistics shows that university has not won many cases in the honble high court, may be university panel of advocates are not representing properly. Dr. Ravishankar Shetty requested to conduct a meeting with panel of advocates and suggested to terminate the advocates from the panel who have served for more than 4 years and requested to present the list of panel of advocates who have been working from past 5 years, number of cases allotted to each lawyer and the details of the fees paid to them Hon'ble members congratulated Hon'ble Vice Chancellor on winning a case with respect to affiliation with Raja Rajarajeshwari Medical College, Prof. Rajesh Shenoy and Dr Kiran Kumar N requested Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to write to govt seeking clarification on losing Karnataka state quota seats from past 2 or 3 years, Hon'ble Vice Chancellor informed the members that a letter has been written to state govt. Dr. Kiran Kumar N congratulated and appreciated the efforts putforth by Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka in winning this case and requested for proper measures to be taken in regards to the surrendering of the seats which are lost from past 3 years of state Government quota. Hon'ble Vice Chancellor informed the members that based on the court order a letter will be written to the college and state government for the implementation of the court decision. The syndicate has thereafter dissolved as under: In view of the prevailing Covid-19 situation, It was recommended to implement the Hon'ble High Court direction regarding Writ petition No. 11348 of 2020 (EDN-RES) as a one time measure,” 13. Similarly, the Regulations of 2023 issued by NMC on 29.12.2023 are also reproduced, more specifically Regulation 8.4, which refers to valuation: “ 8.4 Valuation: ?. All the teachers of the other colleges of the concemed University or other Universities, who are eligible to be post-graduate examiners, can perform the valuation of the answer scripts. b. All the answer scripts shall be subjected for two valuations by the concerned University. The average of the total marks awarded by the two valuators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number), shall be considered for computation of the results. b. All the answer scripts shall be subjected for two valuations by the concerned University. The average of the total marks awarded by the two valuators for the paper, which is rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number), shall be considered for computation of the results. All the answer scripts, where the difference between two valuations is 15% and more of the total marks prescribed for the paper, shall be subjected to third valuation. The average of the best two total marks, awarded by the three evaluators for the paper, rounded off to the nearest integer (whole number), shall be considered for final computation of the results. c. After the computation and declaration of the results, under no circumstances, revaluation is permitted. d. All the Health Universities/Institutions imparting post-graduate courses shall implement digital valuation. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF M.S./M.D./M.Ch./DM COURSES S.No. Description M.S./M.D./M.Ch./DM Courses 1 THEORY No. of Theory Papers 4 Marks for each Theory Paper 100 Total marks for Theory Paper 400 Passing Minimum for Theory 200/400 (40% minimum in each paper) 2 PRACTICAL/CLINICAL 300 3 VIVA VOCE 100 Passing minimum for Practical/Clinical including Viva voce 200/400 The candidate shall secure not less than 50% marks in each head of passing which shall include (1)Theory - aggregate 50% (In addition, in each Theory paper a candidate has to secure minimum 40%) (2) Practical/Clinical and Viva voce - aggregate 50% (3) If any candidate fails even under one head, he/she has to re-appear for both Theory and Practical/Clinical and Viva voce examination. (4) Five per cent of mark of total marks of Clinical/Practical and Viva Voce marks (20 marks) will be of dissertation/thesis and it will be part of clinical/practical examination marks External examiner outside the state will evaluate dissertation/ thesis and take viva voce on it and marks will be given on quality of dissertation/thesis and performance on its viva voce. (5) No grace mark is permitted in post-graduate examination either for theory or for practical. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF P.G. DIPLOMA COURSES S.No Description P.G. Diploma Courses 1 THEORY No. of Theory Papers 3 Marks for each Theory Paper 100 Total marks for Theory Paper 300 Passing Minimum for Theory 150/300 (40% minimum in each paper) 2 PRACTICAL/CLINICAL 200 3 Viva voce 100 14. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF P.G. DIPLOMA COURSES S.No Description P.G. Diploma Courses 1 THEORY No. of Theory Papers 3 Marks for each Theory Paper 100 Total marks for Theory Paper 300 Passing Minimum for Theory 150/300 (40% minimum in each paper) 2 PRACTICAL/CLINICAL 200 3 Viva voce 100 14. It may be stated at the outset that, what was considered by this Court in the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge is the notification issued on 12.11.2020 by the University. In other words, it was the decision of the syndicate vide resolution/notification dated 12.11.2020, which contemplated implementation of the order of this Court in Dr. Guruprasad (supra) as a one time measure. It is also seen that, the decision of the University was to render the benefit of the order in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra) because of COVID-19 situation. In any case it is the submission of Sri. Reddy and other counsel for the respondents that, in the case of Dr. Guruprasad (supra), the benefit of rounding off was not because of COVID reasons, but as arithmetically the petitioner therein had secured 49.75%, the directions were given to round off to the next whole i.e., 50%. In support of his submission, Sri. Reddy has relied upon paragraph No.3(b) of the order of the learned Single Judge in Dr. Guruprasad (supra). What is important is, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Neelesh Mehta (supra), wherein the Division Bench has, in paragraph No.8, held as under: “8. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment also. It was a case of awarding of grace marks to a student undergoing Post Graduate course. No such contingency as involved in the present case was involved in the case decided by Division Bench. This Court is not deciding the present case under normal circumstances. This Court is dealing with a situation where almost the entire country is under lockdown and even the students who are doing under Post Graduate Courses are the frontline workers and are practically doing COVID duties round the clock. Large number of Doctors have lost their lives and inspite of the aforesaid we have not come across a single case where a Doctor has denied treatment to a patient suffering from COVID, atleast to this Bench no such case has been brought to the notice. Large number of Doctors have lost their lives and inspite of the aforesaid we have not come across a single case where a Doctor has denied treatment to a patient suffering from COVID, atleast to this Bench no such case has been brought to the notice. Probably, the University syndicate keeping in view various factors, the plight of Doctors, their sacrifice to save mankind, has taken a policy decision to round off the percentage by its decision dated 12.11.2020, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court when once the syndicate of the University under the provisions of The Rajiv Gandhi University Act, 2006 has taken a decision to round off the marks, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed an order granting the benefit to respondents No.1 and 2, not only this the University cannot implement a judgment of the syndicate in a selective manner. All examinations were held during COVID time in respect of Post Graduate Courses and granting benefit by the University to one individual and denying the same to another individual is certainly violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, admission is declined. No order as to costs.” So, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is very clear that, the benefit of rounding off was given because of the COVID reasons and the same being a justifiable reason, the individuals/candidates were certainly entitled to the benefit thereof. 15. Sri. Reddy had also heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Haroon Adoni (supra), more specifically paragraph No.6 thereof to contend that, when the law continues to be in the statute books, till repealed by the competent body, the benefit of ordinance and relief thereof to the deserving candidates cannot be denied by placing interpretation of the kind, the University wants this Court to place on the clause in question. We are not impressed by this submission of Sri. Reddy. What is important is, the valuation of the answer sheet in the case in hand is under the Regulations of 2023 issued by the NMC. We are not impressed by this submission of Sri. Reddy. What is important is, the valuation of the answer sheet in the case in hand is under the Regulations of 2023 issued by the NMC. So, the issue need to be decided keeping in view the said Regulations of 2023 and not the ordinance/ resolution of the University which was the basis of all the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Though the submission of Sri. Reddy and Smt. Baliga and Sri. Malipatil is that, Regulations of 2023 are pari materia to the ordinance issued by the University which was the subject matter in the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge and as such, the interpretation given by the Division Bench would hold good in these cases as well, we are unable to agree with the said submission. We have already reproduced the resolution passed by the University in the year 2020 and the Regulations of 2023. The Regulations of 2023 more specifically Regulation 8.4 which we have reproduced above is very clear that, the benefit of rounding off is contemplated only at the time of valuation by the two valuators when the average of the total marks are awarded by them which need to be rounded off to the nearest integer and the rounding off shall be considered for computation of the result. In other words, the computation of the result must be on the basis of rounding off, of the marks based on the valuation made by two valuators and not thereafter. There is no stipulation in the regulation, which contemplates rounding off of the percentage of marks. In the present case, the respondent-students have, on the basis of the valuation made by the valuators, on the average of the total marks awarded by them, secured 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75%. This percentage is the reflection of marks pursuant to the valuation by the two valuators. 16. Sri. Chinnappa is justified in his submission that the above percentage is the reflection of the marks which they have secured. In fact we find that, stipulation 5 states that, there is no grace marks permitted in PG examination either for theory or practical. This percentage is the reflection of marks pursuant to the valuation by the two valuators. 16. Sri. Chinnappa is justified in his submission that the above percentage is the reflection of the marks which they have secured. In fact we find that, stipulation 5 states that, there is no grace marks permitted in PG examination either for theory or practical. The relief which has been sought by the respondent and granted by the learned Single Judge is to round off the percentage to 50%, which in effect mean that the same shall have the effect of granting grace marks for the candidates to reach 50%, which is impermissible. In fact, the Sl.No.1 under Regulation 8.4 clearly stipulates the minimum passing marks for theory is 200 out of 400. Concedingly, none of the respondent-students have secured 200/400 as their percentage was 49.25%, 49.50% and 49.75%. So it must follow that, the Regulations issued by the NMC govern the valuation in the manner prescribed and nothing more can be read into the same otherwise it would amount to re-writing the Regulations by the Court, which is clearly impermissible in law. Sri. Chinnappa is also justified in relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Taniya Malik (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has, in paragraphs No.22 to 24, held as under: “22. With regard to question as to rounding off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate. 23. This Court, in Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012) 8 SCC 568 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 650 : 4 SCEC 664], held as impermissible the rounding-off of eligibility criteria in relation to qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). Relying upon the decision rendered in Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] , this Court observed: (G. Hemlatha case [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012) 8 SCC 568 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 650 : 4 SCEC 664] , SCC pp. 570-71, paras 8-12) “8. 570-71, paras 8-12) “8. In Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree howdhary [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] this Court in somewhat similar fact situation considered whether the eligibility criteria could be relaxed by the method of rounding-off. The Orissa Public Service Commission published an advertisement inviting applications from suitable candidates for the Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009 for direct recruitment to fill up 77 posts of Civil Judges (JD). Pursuant to the advertisement, the first respondent therein applied for the said post. She took the preliminary written examination. She was successful in the said examination. She, then, took the main written examination. The list of successful candidates, who were eligible for interview, was published in which the first respondent's name was not there. She received the marksheet. She realised that she had secured 337 marks out of 750 i.e. 44.93% of marks in the aggregate and more than 33% of marks in each subject. 9. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short “the Orissa Rules”), the candidates who have secured not less than 45% of the marks in the aggregate and not less than a minimum of 33% of marks in each paper in the written examination should be called for viva voce test. Since the first respondent therein had secured 44.93% marks in aggregate she was not called for interview/viva voce. The first respondent approached the Orissa High Court. The High Court allowed [Rupashree Chowdhury v. State of Orissa, 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 361 : (2010) 109 CLT 466 ] the writ petition. The appeal from the said order was carried to this Court. 10. After considering the Orissa Rules, this Court in Rupashree Chowdhary case [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] held that Rule 24 thereof made it clear that: (SCC p. 111, para 10) ‘10. The appeal from the said order was carried to this Court. 10. After considering the Orissa Rules, this Court in Rupashree Chowdhary case [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] held that Rule 24 thereof made it clear that: (SCC p. 111, para 10) ‘10. … in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination.’ This Court observed that when emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there can be no relaxation or rounding-off. It was observed that no power was provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding- off or giving grace marks. It was clarified that: (SCC p. 112, para 10) ‘10. … The [Orissa] Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory Rules for giving the benefit of rounding-off or relaxation.’ 11. In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi v. DG, Medical Education and Training [Vani Pati Tripathi v. DG, Medical Education and Training, 2002 SCC OnLine All 1005 : AIR 2003 All 164 ] and the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab [Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 649 : PLR (1997) 117 P&H 1] were cited before us because they take the same view. However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public Service Commission [Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary, (2011) 8 SCC 108 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] , it is not necessary for us to discuss the said decisions. 12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. 12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench [Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemalatha, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5108] of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge [G. Hemalatha v. Registrar, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5189 : (2011) 4 Kant LJ 286] was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Thus the principle of rounding off method could not be applied in view of the requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instant case.” 17. Insofar as the submission of Sri. Malipatil on the applicability of old Regulations of 2000 for the examination is concerned, the same is not appealing for more than one reason. Firstly, such a plea as stated by Sri. Malipatil though pleaded, but was not advanced. Rather, the respondents for whom he appears got the benefit of the earlier judgment by the learned Single Judge in Dr. K. Sree Laxmi -Vs.- Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Another [WP No.3438/2025 and connected petitions , decided on 24.02.2025 ] . He concedes to the fact the judgment of which benefit has been given to the appellants for whom he represents was by interpreting Regulation 8.4 of the Regulations of 2023 and the respondents have not filed any appeal on the ground it should be Regulations of 2000 which should hold the field. Secondly, the NMC has, vide its communication dated 28.11.2024, clarified that the examination in question has to be governed by the Regulations of 2023. The said communication has not been challenged by the respondents for whom Sri. Malipatil appears. 18. In view of our above discussion, the impugned orders dated 24.02.2025, 12.03.2025 and 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge are clearly untenable and liable to be set aside; we do so accordingly. The appeals are allowed. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of