In a couple of writ petitions filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court to call for the question paper for the Doctoral Entrance Test (DET), Ph.D. Examination under Microbiology and to declare the revised result after removing all out of syllabus questions from the same, among other prayers, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra refused to grant relief to the petitioners and dismissed the petitions.
The petitioners asserted that Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur (respondent University), had issued a notification regarding the DET for admission to the Ph.D. program for 2024-25 and that the probable number of seats available in Botany, Microbiology, and Bio-Technology was 16. It was contended that there were approximately 20 questions outside the syllabus in the Subject Specific category of the paper. As per the results declared on 24-07-2025, the petitioners obtained 45 marks and 41 marks, respectively.
The students raised objections, and the respondent University issued a revised result for Microbiology on 06-08-2025. Contentions were also made regarding the unequal distribution of marks in the revised result.
The Court noted that the petitioner, belonging to the unreserved category, obtained 45 marks, which was subsequently revised to 46 marks, and that the petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, obtained 41 marks out of 100. The Court stated that, considering 20 out of the syllabus questions, the final result would have to be calculated out of 80, and that the petitioner from the unreserved category secured 46%, whereas the petitioner from the Scheduled Caste category secured 41%.
The Court stated that the unreserved category petitioner was required to obtain 50% marks, whereas the petitioner from the Scheduled Caste had to attain 45%, which they both failed to do, and it was also mentioned that the calculation of marks by the respondent University had been rightly done as per the advisory issued by the Research Advisory Committee.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 81 and Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 9 SCC 743, and it was stated that redistribution of marks as per the correct answers to all candidates would not be prejudicial to the petitioners. Thus, the Court dismissed the petitions and held that no relief was to be granted to the petitioners.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Utkarsh Agrawal
For Respondents – Mr. Shreyash Pandit
