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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Prahalad Ram – Appellant
Versus
The National Medical Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 53561 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr.D.Sreenivasan
For the Respondents: Mrs.V.Sudha, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, for R1
Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate, for RR-2, 5 and 6
Mrs.C.Latharani, Standing Counsel for RR-3 and 4

The definition of 'attempt' in examination regulations includes partial attendance, justifying discharges after failure to clear exams.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Court evaluated Regulation No. 7.7 concerning the number of attempts allowed for the first professional examination and the criteria for counting an attempt. Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenged an order discharging him from the M.B.B.S course after failing to clear an exam in four attempts.

Findings of Court:
The Court determined the petitioner had met the criteria for being considered as having taken an attempt, which justified the discharge.

Issues: The main question was whether the discharge order was valid under Regulation No. 7.7.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the term 'attempt' includes partial attendance at examinations, affirming the legitimacy of the discharge.

Result: Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. criteria for examination discharge decision based on attempts (Para 2 , 3)
2. regulation related to attempts upheld (Para 4 , 5)
3. final dismissal of writ petition (Para 6)

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated

06.02.2025, whereby, the petitioner was discharged from the M.B.B.S course.

2. The ground, on which, the petitioner was discharged is that even though he had made four attempts, he did not clear the first professional M.B.B.S examination and therefore, he was discharged.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that while it is true that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.24526 of 2025 and also W.P.No.37748 of 2025. In both the earlier rounds, the relevant point that when the petitioner has cleared the Physiology Paper – I and Paper – II and has not cleared Human Anatomy and Biochemistry, it was not placed before this Court that in the first attempt in November, 2023, the petitioner was not permitted to write these two papers. Thus, the petitioner was not permitted to appear. Even after the fourth attempt, the respondents themselves had issued a communication that the petitioner has passed Physiology only in the fourth attempt and he appeared only three times in the other papers and there is one more attempt for the petitioner to pass Human Anatomy Paper – I and Paper -II and Biochemistry Paper – I and Paper- II.

4. In reply thereof, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the National Medical Commission would rely upon the regulation No.7.7. The same is extracted hereunder:-

“No more than four attempts shall be allowed for a candidate to pass the first Professional examination. The total period for successful completion of first Professional course shall not exceed four (4) years. Partial attendance of examination in any subject shall be counted as an attempt.”

5. The validity, in respect thereof and was upheld also the fact that it will apply even to the students prior to the year 2020 was also all held by the Delhi High Court in Sachin and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C).No.13180 of 2022). The Special Leave Petition, filed against the said Writ Petition, is also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Upon considering the said regulation No.7.7, the last sentence categorically mentions that partial attendance of examination in any subject shall be counted as an attempt. Therefore, when the petitioner appeared for the examination in the month of November, 2023, he partially attended for Physiology, but, however, was not permitted to write Human Anatomy and Biochemistry, but, as per the definition for the term ‘attempt’ as contained in regulation No.7.7, it should be noted that the same would also be included as an attempt. Under the above circumstances, even though the petitioner is filing this Writ Petition as a third attempt, even by considering the matter on merits, I am not able to grant relief to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 26.02.2026 Neutral Citation : no grs To

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top