Abstract Background: There has always been a significant disparity in the evaluation of undergraduate students by the faculty members. Each person has their own way of looking and assessing a number of different clinical procedures. Although scientifically the steps and procedures have been defined but the interpretation at an individual level may always be different. Aim: This study was conducted with an aim to bring uniformity in the evaluation of undergraduate students by the faculty members. Materials and Method: Seven hundred and fifty undergraduate final year students were evaluated and graded for restorative procedures over a period of three years by three faculty members. The grading was done for fifteen parameters designed for a restorative procedure including ethics and infection control protocol. A written guideline for grading of each step was formulated and grades were given based on those criteria. Results: The results were statistically analysed using ANOVA and Bonferroni Multiple Comparisons. It was observed that there was statistically no significant difference in the evaluation by all the three examiners. The inter-examiner variability was found to be non significant. It was also observed that the performance of students had also improved over the period of the study. Conclusion: A uniform grading system can be evolved by formulating certain guiding principles for various clinical procedures which will further help to reduce disparity between students’ evaluation by different teachers.