Chattu Prasanna vs The Central Government & Ors.

This Writ petition is filed with the following relief:

Heard Ms. Bandari Divya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Gorantla Pujita, learned Standing Counsel for national Medical Commission appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Koloji Narayana Rao University appearing for respondent No.2.

Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, the petitioner is a student pursuing Professional MBBS course as a member of the 2023 batch at TRR Institute of Medical Sciences, affiliated with Koloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS). It is stated that the petitioner was earlier detained in the subject of Anatomy during the academic year 2024 on account of shortage of attendance/medical reasons. Thereafter, she was permitted to appear for the University examination in Anatomy on three occasions, including the examinations conducted in November 2024 and September 2024, as well as subsequent attempts. According to the petitioner, she has availed only three attempts and is entitled to one further attempt under the applicable regulations of the National Medical Commission (NMC). However, the Principal of TRR Institute of Medical Sciences/Respondent No. 4, by proceedings dated 29.07.2026, refused to permit the petitioner to appear for the forthcoming fourth First Professional MBBS Anatomy examination. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.07.2026, requesting that she be permitted to appear for the examination scheduled between 12.08.2026 and 24.08.2026, during which the Anatomy examinations were scheduled to be conducted on 17.08.2026 and 19.08.2026.

The petitioner asserts that denial of permission to appear for the said examination would result in the loss of an entire academic year and cause serious academic, financial, and career prejudice to her, whereas permitting her to appear for the examination would cause no corresponding prejudice to the respondents. It is therefore contended that the balance of convenience lies in her favor. In the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner seeks invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 4 in refusing permission to the petitioner to appear for the examination as illegal and consequently setting aside the said action and directing the respondents to permit her to appear for the forthcoming fourth First Professional MBBS University examination in Anatomy.

The respondents contend that the Professional MBBS examination scheme provides for a regular University examination and, in the event of failure, a supplementary examination, while prescribing a maximum of four attempts and a four-year limit for completion of Phase I. The regulations further stipulate that non-appearance in both the theory and practical examinations of a subject shall not be counted as an attempt, whereas appearance in either component shall constitute an attempt. The respondents further submit that progression to the subsequent phase is subject to clearing all Phase I subjects and fulfilling the prescribed requirements relating to internal assessment, attendance, and competence. Where deficiencies arise, the regulatory framework provides for prior intimation and remedial measures, subject to the prescribed conditions.

In the petitioner's case, since she was detained prior to the examination, the respondents contend that the petitioner cannot claim an additional attempt merely on the basis of her detention and that her entitlement must be determined with reference to the applicable regulations, the official academic and examination records, and her fulfilment of all eligibility and progression requirements.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

6 Upon consideration of the rival pleadings and the material placed on record, the principal question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner's earlier detention can be treated as one of the four permissible attempts prescribed for passing the Phase-I/First Year Professional MBBS examination, particularly when the petitioner asserts that she did not appear in either the theory or practical component of the Anatomy examination on that occasion.

7 The applicable regulatory framework prescribes a maximum of four attempts and specifically provides that non-appearance in both the theory and practical examinations of a subject shall not be counted as an attempt, whereas appearance in either component shall constitute an attempt. Therefore, the material and relevant consideration is whether the petitioner had, in fact, appeared in either the theory or practical component of the Anatomy examination on the occasion in question.

It is well settled that Courts ordinarily exercise restraint in matters concerning academic standards, examinations, and the implementation of academic regulations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the need for such judicial restraint in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, 2009 INSC 217. However, such restraint cannot be understood as conferring upon an academic authority the power to disregard or depart from the express requirements of the governing regulations. Where an academic authority acts contrary to the applicable regulatory framework, such action remains amenable to judicial review.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was detained prior to the relevant examination. It is also not in dispute that she thereafter appeared in the subject of Anatomy on three subsequent occasions. More importantly, the contemporaneous examination record produced by Respondent No. 2 establishes that, on the first occasion, when the petitioner had been detained, she did not appear in either the theory or practical component of the Anatomy examination.

Consequently, the petitioner's detention on that occasion cannot, by itself, be treated as an examination attempt. The regulatory provision expressly excludes an occasion on which a candidate does not appear in either the theory or practical component from being counted as an attempt. The petitioner's three subsequent appearances would, therefore, constitute three attempts, leaving one permissible attempt available to her, subject to her fulfilment of all other applicable eligibility requirements.

The contention of the respondents that the petitioner must independently satisfy the requirements relating to attendance, internal assessment, competency, and other prescribed eligibility conditions is accepted. This Court cannot waive, dispense with, or relax any mandatory requirement prescribed by the governing regulations. At the same time, no independent disqualification, apart from the alleged exhaustion of the permissible attempts, has been shown to be the basis of the impugned proceedings. The petitioner's claim does not, by itself, confer upon her any additional examination attempt. However, the question whether an attempt has been exhausted must necessarily be determined in accordance with the governing regulation and the actual examination record. An erroneous application or interpretation of such regulation by an academic authority is amenable to judicial review.

Accordingly, the proceedings dated 29.07.2026 cannot be sustained insofar as they proceed on the premise that the petitioner's earlier detention necessarily exhausted one of the four permissible examination attempts. The petitioner consequently has one further permissible attempt available to her, subject, however, to fulfilment of all other applicable eligibility requirements.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The proceedings dated 29.07.2026 issued by the 4th respondent are set aside to the extent that they treat the petitioner's earlier detention as an exhausted examination attempt notwithstanding her non-appearance in both the theory and practical components of the examination. Consequently, the petitioner shall be permitted to avail herself of the fourth and final permissible examination attempt, subject to her compliance with all other applicable eligibility requirements prescribed by the National Medical Commission (NMC), Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS), and the competent authorities.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.