SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
Surendra Bisnoi S/o. Shri Ram Niwas Bisnoi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17615 of 2024 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17854 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17883 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17899 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17911 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17915 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17918 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17920 of 2024
Decided On : 18-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhavit Sharma, Mr. Hukam Singh.
For the Respondent: Ms Aditi Sharma for Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. Parbat Singh, AGC., Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi.

Attendance requirements for medical education are stringent and must be upheld to maintain educational standards, despite individual circumstances.

Headnote:

(A) Education Law - Medical Education - Attendance Requirements - The petitioner, diagnosed with dengue, could not meet attendance requirements for MBBS; previous policies allowing remedial classes were withdrawn, leading to inability to sit for examinations. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

(B) Policy Changes - The Court highlighted that the absence of remedial classes due to policy changes cannot be blamed on the petitioner, yet strict adherence to attendance is crucial for medical students. (Paras 6, 7)

(C) Importance of Standards - The Court emphasized that maintaining high educational standards in medical education is essential for public health and the competency of future healthcare providers. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was admitted to MBBS after qualifying NEET but was unable to attend classes due to illness, leading to a failure to meet attendance requirements.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that due to insufficient attendance, the petitioner could not be allowed to sit for the supplementary examination.

Issues: The main issues included the impact of the petitioner's illness on attendance and the fairness of the policy changes regarding remedial classes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that while the petitioner faced challenges due to illness, adherence to attendance standards is non-negotiable in medical education.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present batch of writ petitions involve similar question of facts and law, therefore, the same is being decided by this common order. For brevity, the facts mentioned in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17615/2024 (Surendra Bishnoi V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are taken into consideration for deciding the controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions.

3. Briefly noted facts of the case are that the petitioner after having qualified the NEET examination was allotted Government Medical College, Barmer wherein he took admission in M.B.B.S. Course for the year 2023. While the petitioner was attending the classes of Ist year M.B.B.S. Course, he was diagnosed with Dengue and on account of the same, he could not attend his classes. After recovering from the illness, he regularly attended the College, however, he was not allowed to undertake the MBBS Ist year examination. The petitioner continued to attend his classes and when he was not allowed to appear in the supplementary examination, he approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s attendance was short on account of his illness and for other plausible reasons, therefore, he should have been allowed to appear in the supplementary examination. Learned counsel submits that the policy, which was in existence prior to the admission of the petitioner envisaged holding of remedial classes to complete short-fall of the attendance and since, after admission of the petitioner that policy was discontinued and the new policy framed by the respondents did not provide for such arrangement of holding remedial classes, the petitioner was required to be permitted to appear in the supplementary examination. He submits that for no fault of the petitioner, he has been made to suffer loss of one year. He further submits that this policy of 2023 was also subsequently withdrawn. Learned counsel further submits that a new policy was introduced in the year 2024, which also envisaged for holding of the remedial classes. He submits that it is on account of only bad luck of the petitioner that he was not allowed to undergo the remedial classes, therefore, he was not in a position to complete his short-fall of attendance for the reasons beyond his control. Resultantly, the petitioner has suffered a loss of one year. Learned counsel further submits that one of the writ petition filed by similarly situated candidate was allowed and the person, who was similarly situated to the petitioner was allowed to undertake examination of first year MBBS Course along with the Second year MBBS course examination. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be allowed to undergo second year M.B.B.S. course along with first year MBBS Examination.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner has not appeared in the main examination on account of shortage of his attendance, therefore, he cannot be allowed to sit in the supplementary examination. Learned counsel further submits that since the policy which was in vogue at the relevant time did not envisage holding of the remedial classes, therefore, no fault can be found with the respondents in not holding the remedial classes. It is a condition precedent for MBBS students to complete 75% attendance in theory and 80% in practical and clinical session for being eligible to appear in the University examination. Since, the petitioner has not completed the same, he has been rightly debarred from appearing in the First year examination of MBBS. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Tanmay Kumar as in the case of Tanmay Kumar, his attendance was short only in one subject, therefore, the Coordinate bench allowed the petitioner Tanmay Kumar to undergo his first year examination along with the second year examination, but in the present ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top