D. Srividhya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not permitting the petitioner to pay the examination fee and to appear for the final BDS examination in the subject of Oral Medicine, Diagnosis, and Radiology (theory and practical) proposed to be held in the month of October/November, 2026. A direction from this court is sought for permitting the petitioner to write the examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared for the BDS final examination conducted in March, 2026 and cleared all papers except Oral Medicine, Diagnosis and Radiology (theory and practical paper).

It is submitted that the petitioner, along with others, filed W.P.No.8161 of 2026 when the petitioners therein were not permitted to pay the exam fee for the scheduled examinations in March, 2026. It is submitted that this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the examinations conducted in March, 2026. Thereafter, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to declare the exam results as well.

It is submitted that the petitioner appeared for the examinations conducted in March, 2026 and cleared all subjects except one, for which the petitioner intends to appear in the ensuing examinations to be conducted in October, 2026. It is submitted that the respondent university is not permitting the petitioner to appear for the examination because the petitioner could not complete the BDS course within the 8-year window period. In this regard, the petitioner also submitted a representation dated 10.09.2026 seeking indulgence of the respondent authority to permit the petitioner and grant one opportunity to appear for the examination. It is submitted that the petitioner requested that her representation be considered on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.

It is submitted that the petitioner received no response from the respondent authority and is constrained to file the present writ petition, seeking this Court's indulgence in directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examinations and clear one subject. It is submitted that the petitioner had completed all subjects of all years except for one (1) subject of the 4^thyear.

The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submits that a detailed counter has been filed and that this Court cannot consider the petitioner's case in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation on an identical issue. It was held that the students who did not complete the BDS course as per the regulations cannot be granted any relief. It is submitted that the petitioner failed in the said subject and cannot claim any relief from this Court.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supplemental final-year BDS examinations were not held in October-November 2025. In turn, the exams were scheduled in March 2026. Accordingly, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to appear in the supplementary examinations in October-November 2025. It is submitted that, had the petitioner been afforded an opportunity to appear for the supplementary examinations, which could not be conducted in 2025, the petitioner would have had better chances of clearing all subjects within the 8-year window period.

It is also submitted that this Court considered the same issue in the earlier round of litigation and permitted the petitioners therein to appear for the examinations conducted in March 2026. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court by permitting the petitioner to appear for the one (1) exam paper which the petitioner could not clear in the exams scheduled in March 2026.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

The short point for consideration is whether this Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction and permit the petitioner to appear for the one(1) exam paper which the petitioner could not clear in the examinations conducted in March, 2026.

On the facts of the case, admittedly, there is a lapse on the part of the University in conducting the examinations as per the fixed academic schedule. The supplementary examinations for the year 2025 were not conducted and the exams were conducted in the month of March, 2026. By that point of time, the petitioner had crossed the 8-year window for completing the BDS course. However, on indulgence of this court, the petitioner has appeared in the said examinations and cleared all subjects except for one subject. Things would have been completely different had the respondent university conducted examinations strictly in accordance with the academic schedule and the petitioner exhausting her available academic chances of clearing the subjects within the window period of 8 years. On account of the extension of the academic year resulting in stretching the academic year beyond the 12-month period, several students who could not complete the course within the 8-year window have approached this court and this court considered their cases. as a one-time measure and permitted them to appear for the examinations only in view of the lapses on part of the respondent university in conducting examinations strictly in accordance with the academic schedule.

On the facts of this case also, except for one paper. The petitioner had cleared all subjects of the 4 year BDS course. However, she could not clear one paper and as the respondent university was unable to conduct the academic examinations as per the academic schedule, this Court feels it appropriate to grant a last and final opportunity for the petitioner to appear for the examination to be scheduled in the month of October, 2026. It is made clear that this arrangement and direction is issued keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case and this order cannot be used as a precedent.

The issue of non-conducting of examinations strictly in accordance with the academic schedule for the academic year was not the subject that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering C.A.No.014875-014880/2025 in the matter of Siddanth Mahajan Vs. State of Rajasthan^{11.2025 INSC 1458}. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the batch of appeals concerning the legality of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (hereinafter referred to as “BDS”) course admissions granted in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year 2016-17 after lowering of the minimum percentile as prescribed for the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “NEET”) UG examinations.The learned Division Bench of this Court was not considering the issue of related to delay on part of the University in conducting the examinations strictly in accordance with the academic calendar.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to appear for the Oral Medicine, Diagnosis and Radiology(Theory & Practical) exam to be conducted in the month of October/November 2026 as a one time measure.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.