In Brief
A medical student at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University secured only 6 marks in one paper despite strong overall performance, failed the exam, and approached the High Court for re-evaluation. The High Court, after arranging independent evaluation by three examiners who awarded 19–21 marks, directed the university to credit the average (20 marks), allowing the student to pass. However, the High Court also imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on the university, issued general directives about examiner efficiency, and opened all examinations from the prior three years for re-evaluation. The Supreme Court upheld the student's relief but reversed the ancillary directions, holding that judicial mandamus must be confined to specific case issues, not generalized from one examiner's fault to presume systemic illegality, and that vague directives cannot form binding court orders.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.