Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28/10/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner J. Dheepak Chandru (son of N. Jayachandran), represented by Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, versus the Vice‑Chancellor, Registrar and Controller of Examinations of Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai.
  • Petition: filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the University to declare the petitioner’s result in the M.S. Orthopaedics examination held in May 2025 (Reg. No. 220220504001) by taking the higher of the first or second valuation marks for each of the four subjects, rather than the average prescribed by the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2023 (PGMER 2023).
  • Background: the petitioner completed MBBS in 2016 (Saveetha Medical College, Chennai) and pursued the three‑year M.S. Orthopaedics programme (2020‑2023) at SRM Medical College, Trichy. The examining authority is Dr. M.G.R. Medical University. He appeared for the examination for the fifth time in May 2025; earlier attempts were in May 2023 and October 2024.
  • Grievance: he contends that if the earlier PGMER 2000 (and its amendments) were applied, he would have passed, but the University applied the amended 2023 Regulations, resulting in failure.
  • Marks Table (first, second, third valuations and average):

| Subject | 1st Valuation | 2nd Valuation | 3rd Valuation | Average |

| Basic Science as applied to Orthopaedics | 53 | 50 | – | 52 |

| Traumatology and Rehabilitation | 33 | 50 | 50 | 50 |

| Orthopaedic diseases | 44 | 50 | – | 47 |

| Recent advances in Ortho surgery | 50 | 44 | – | 47 |

  • Regulatory Provisions Cited:

Clause 8.4(b) of PGMER 2023 – mandates two valuations, the average of the two marks (rounded) to be used; if the difference exceeds 15 % of total marks, a third valuation is done and the best two marks are averaged. No re‑valuation is permitted after result declaration.

Clause 11.2 (Saving Clause) – protects actions taken under the 2000 Regulations, but Clause 11.3 repeals those Regulations.

  • Petitioner’s Submissions: relied on Resolution No. 40 (03‑03‑2015) and Agenda 245 (38) (effective August 2016) which earlier required the higher of the two valuation marks to be taken. Also cited a counter‑affidavit (W.P. No. 11117 of 2017) where the University had undertaken to consider the higher marks.
  • Respondent’s Submissions: argued that the PGMER 2023 is the operative statute; the University cannot revert to earlier rules as a one‑time measure.

Court’s Analysis

  • The PGMER 2023 was notified on 29‑12‑2023 and came into force on 01‑01‑2024. Clause 8.4(b) is mandatory and does not allow substitution of the higher single mark.
  • No statutory exemption exists for candidates admitted before the 2023 Regulations; the saving clause (11.2) protects only actions already taken under the 2000 Regulations, not future examinations.
  • The University resolutions of 2015 and 2016, and the counter‑affidavit, relate to the earlier valuation framework and do not create an enforceable right to deviate from the current statutory rule.
  • The petition does not allege any mis‑calculation; the marks and averages were computed as per the Regulations.
  • Under Article 226, the Court can only examine legality of the authority’s action, not direct it to contravene a statutory provision. The shortfall of four theory marks does not justify a different formula.
  • Citing Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, the Court reaffirmed that it cannot order an authority to act contrary to a statute.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed. No costs awarded.

Topics: Legal; Medical Education