‘MBBS is licence to treat patients, not just a credential’: Rajasthan High Court dismisses student’s plea

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a special appeal by an MBBS student who could not clear his final professional examinations even fourteen years after admission, holding that his plea for a further chance could not survive once an additional opportunity secured through the Court’s own intervention also ended in failure.

A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that the appellant’s argument — that the ten-year cap under the 2019 Amended Regulations on Graduate Medical Education could not apply retrospectively to a student admitted in 2010 — had turned “largely academic,” since he had failed even the extra examination attempt the Court had itself arranged for him in 2024.

The bench observed:

“The MBBS qualification is not a mere academic credential; it is a licence to treat patients. A court cannot remain unmindful of the fate of patients who would be treated by a physician who has been unable to demonstrate the minimum competence prescribed, despite attempts spread over fourteen years. Indeed, a patient made aware of such an academic record would justifiably dread the consequences of such treatment.”

The appellant had taken admission in the MBBS course at NIMS University, Jaipur in 2010, and by way of a writ petition had sought a direction permitting him to appear in the remaining papers — Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynaecology — of the MBBS Final Professional Part-II Examination. A Single Judge dismissed the petition by order dated Apr 18, 2023, holding that the appellant could not take advantage of his own wrong in failing to complete the course within the ten-year period prescribed by Clause 7.6(ii) of the Amended Regulations, and that the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sachin & Ors., since affirmed by the Supreme Court, left no room for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench noted that the appellant’s academic record was “a telling tale in itself.” He had failed his MBBS 1st Year Examination overall in June 2011, passing only in supplementary attempts spread across the following years, and went on to fail and re-attempt papers of the Second Professional and Final Professional examinations repeatedly between 2013 and 2019, clearing individual subjects such as Pathology, Pharmacology, ENT, Ophthalmology and Community Medicine only in scattered supplementary rounds. He most recently failed Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynaecology in the Final Professional Part-II Supplementary Examination in March 2020, having by then made no headway in nearly a decade.

Taking note that the appellant’s career was at stake, an earlier Division Bench of the Court, by an interim order dated Jan 30, 2024, had afforded him one further opportunity to appear in the MBBS Third Professional Part-II Examination scheduled for February 2024, distinguishing the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Sachin on facts since the students in that case had been admitted only in 2019, after the amended Regulations came into force. The result of that examination was directed to be submitted to the Registry in a sealed cover.

Counsel for the respondents placed on record the appellant’s result dated Mar 12, 2024, showing that he had once again failed to qualify. The bench observed that the significance of this outcome “cannot be overstated,” given that the Court, of its own indulgence, had secured for the appellant an opportunity beyond what the regulations otherwise permitted, and yet he had been unable to avail of it.

Since the appellant had failed every attempt afforded to him, including the one secured under the Court’s own orders, the bench held that his retrospectivity argument no longer required determination. What survived, it noted, was only a plea of hardship — that his career would be jeopardised and that he had borrowed from various quarters to fund his admission and tuition. The bench was “not unsympathetic” to this financial loss but held that “sympathy cannot be permitted to override the larger public interest,” and found itself unable to accept the plea for any further indulgence.

Recording its respectful agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the special appeal, with no order as to costs, and disposed of all pending applications.

Title: Sheikh Tarique v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 494/2023

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:26229-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Angad Mirdha, Mr. Achintya Kaushik and Ms. Vinita Sharma; Mr. C.P. Sharma for Mr. Devesh Kumar Bansal