Bombay High Court Denies MBBS Student Fifth First-Year Attempt; Holds Appearing in Some Subjects Counts as Attempt Despite Skipping Anatomy Due to Internal Marks
Bombay High Court Refuses Another Anatomy Attempt to MBBS Student; Holds Four-Attempt Limit Applies to First Year as Whole, Not Individual Subjects
Facts
The petitioner, Aarya Avinash Patil, appeared for NEET-UG 2023 and secured admission to the First Year MBBS course at Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences in August 2023.
During the internal assessments conducted in August 2024, she passed all subjects except Anatomy, in which she fell short by two marks. Under the applicable guidelines, passing the internal assessment was necessary to become eligible for the University’s theory and practical examinations. Consequently, she appeared in the University examinations for the other subjects but did not appear for Anatomy.
She subsequently appeared in the supplementary examination in October 2024 and took the Anatomy theory and practical examination for the first time. She failed Anatomy theory by four marks but passed Physiology and Biochemistry, leaving Anatomy as her only pending First Year subject.
She appeared for Anatomy again in September 2025, passing the practical examination with 53/100 but failing theory. In December 2025, she made another attempt, again passing the practical component but failing Anatomy theory by ten marks.
The petitioner believed that she had attempted Anatomy only three times and therefore remained entitled to a fourth Anatomy attempt in August 2026.
The College, however, informed her that she could not be granted another attempt. She therefore approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to appear for the Anatomy theory and practical examinations conducted by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS).
Issues
The principal issues before the Bombay High Court were:
- Whether the four-attempt ceiling under Regulation 21 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 applies to the entire First Professional MBBS examination or separately to each individual subject.
- Whether the petitioner’s August 2024 examination should count as an “attempt” when she appeared for Physiology and Biochemistry but was not eligible to appear for Anatomy.
- Whether omission from the 2023 Regulations of the earlier phrase “Partial attendance at any University examination shall be counted as an availed attempt” meant that partial appearance could no longer be treated as an attempt.
- Whether the petitioner was therefore entitled to one further opportunity to clear Anatomy.
- Whether the earlier Bombay High Court judgment in Rajkumarsingh v. Amravati University supported the petitioner’s case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner relied upon the distinction between the earlier 1997 Regulations, as amended in 2019, and the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023.
Under Regulation 11.2.7(2) of the earlier regime, a maximum of four attempts was available to clear the First Professional examination, and the regulation expressly stated:
“Partial attendance at any University examination shall be counted as an availed attempt.”
The petitioner pointed out that this specific sentence was omitted from Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations.
She therefore argued that her August 2024 appearance could not be counted against her for Anatomy because she had not appeared for Anatomy at all. She was ineligible to take that paper due to her internal assessment marks.
According to her, she had actually appeared for Anatomy only three times and was consequently entitled to a fourth Anatomy attempt.
She also relied upon the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision in Rajkumarsingh S/o Dr. K.B. Singh v. Amravati University, 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 627.
Respondents’ Arguments
MUHS, the National Medical Commission and the College opposed the petition.
They argued that the omission of the earlier words concerning “partial attendance” did not alter the legal position.
Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations expressly provides that under no circumstances can a student be allowed more than four attempts for First Year (First Professional MBBS).
According to the respondents, the regulation counts attempts at the First Year MBBS level, not separately for Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry.
Since the petitioner had already availed four First Year MBBS examination attempts, she was not entitled to another opportunity merely because Anatomy had not been attempted in one of those examinations.
The respondents also argued that Rajkumarsingh was factually distinguishable.
Analysis of the Law
The controversy principally turned on the interpretation of Regulation 21 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023.
Regulation 21 provides that:
“under no circumstances, the student shall be allowed more than four (04) attempts for first year (First Professional MBBS)”
and further provides that no student can continue the undergraduate medical course beyond nine years from admission.
The High Court emphasised that the regulation uses the expression “four attempts for first year (First Professional MBBS)”.
It does not say four attempts for each individual subject.
Therefore, the number of attempts must be calculated with reference to the First Year MBBS examination as a whole, irrespective of which individual subjects the student actually attempted on a particular occasion.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the deletion of the “partial attendance” sentence from the earlier regulations.
According to the Court, the plain language of Regulation 21 remained sufficiently clear. The omission did not convert the four-attempt limit from a year-wise restriction into a subject-wise restriction.
Precedent Analysis
Rajkumarsingh S/o Dr. K.B. Singh v. Amravati University
The petitioner heavily relied upon this 1996 Bombay High Court judgment.
In Rajkumarsingh, the student could not appear for an MBBS examination because he had been detained for want of requisite attendance. The applicable ordinance referred to an “examinee” who failed to pass or present himself in four consecutive examinations.
The Court in that case held that a person who had not even been admitted to the examination and had not received an admission card could not be treated as an “examinee” for that examination.
It also invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia — the law does not compel a person to do what is impossible. Circumstances beyond a student’s control preventing appearance could not automatically be treated as failure to appear.
However, the Division Bench found Rajkumarsingh clearly distinguishable.
Unlike that student, Aarya Patil had actually appeared in the First Year MBBS examination, taking Physiology and Biochemistry even though she did not take Anatomy.
Therefore, her case was not one of complete inability to participate in the examination. Her appearance in other First Year subjects constituted an attempt under Regulation 21.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court’s reasoning rested on a crucial distinction between an attempt at a particular subject and an attempt at First Year MBBS.
The Court held that Regulation 21 is concerned with the latter.
The petitioner’s argument proceeded on the assumption that she was entitled to four independent attempts at Anatomy. The Court rejected this interpretation because the regulation does not prescribe four attempts per subject.
Instead, it imposes an absolute maximum of four attempts for First Professional MBBS.
Accordingly, even though the petitioner did not write Anatomy in August 2024, she did appear for Physiology and Biochemistry. That examination therefore constituted one of her four First Year attempts.
The Court expressly found that the petitioner had admittedly given four attempts of First Year MBBS.
Consequently:
“The Petitioner has already been allowed four attempts for the first year MBBS and cannot be allowed any more attempt.”
The Court also found it unnecessary to examine the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum Guidelines because Regulation 21 itself was clear and sufficient to decide the controversy.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the four-attempt ceiling under Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations applies to First Year MBBS as a whole and not separately to each individual subject.
Therefore, an examination in which a student appears for some First Year subjects can count as an attempt even if the student does not appear for another subject such as Anatomy.
The omission of the earlier provision expressly stating that partial attendance would count as an attempt did not alter the clear wording of Regulation 21.
Since Aarya Patil had already exhausted four First Year MBBS attempts, the Court refused to permit another attempt merely because she had written Anatomy only three times.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case: Aarya Avinash Patil v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik & Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7366 of 2026
Bench: Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Judgment authored by: Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Reserved on: 20 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 31 August 2026
Result: Writ Petition dismissed. The petitioner was denied another Anatomy examination attempt because she had already exhausted the maximum four attempts permitted for First Professional MBBS under Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations
