Madras High CourtWA/760/2026dismissed

Prahalad Ram v. The National Medical Commission

2026-03-26Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.03.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WA No. 760 of 2026 Prahalad Ram S/o.Vagta Ram, Residing at Govinda Gorkhede Complex, Hazaripahad, Seminary Hills, Nakpur, Maharastra - 440006.

Appellant(s) Vs

1. The National Medical Commission Pocket 14, Sector -8, Dwarka Phase - 1, New Delhi, India - 110077.

2. The Director of Medical Education Government of Tamil Nadu, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3. The Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

4. The Controller of Examinations Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

5. The Dean Kanyakumari Government Medical College, Asaripallam, Tamil Nadu - 629201.

6. The Principal Kanyakumari Government Medical College, Asari Pallam, Tamil Nadu - 629201.

Respondent(s) PRAYER : Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent To set aside the order dated 26.02.2026 passed in WP No.47974 of 2025 by allowing the present Writ Appeal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the Appellant to appear for Human Anatomy and Biochemistry in his remaining attempts and thereby render justice. For Appellant(s):

Mr. V.Jaiharisudhan For Respondent(s):Mrs.M.Sneha, Special Counsel for Health and Family Welfare Department for R2 to R5

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Impugning the order dated 26.2.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.47974 of 2025, the unsuccessful petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

2. By proceedings dated 6.2.2025 of the fifth respondent, the appellant, who had not cleared his First Year MBBS Examination in four attempts was discharged and relieved.

3. Assailing the proceedings dated 6.2.2025 of the fifth respondent, the appellant filed writ petition. The learned Single Judge, vide the order impugned in his appeal, referring to Regulation No.7.7 of the Regulations on Graduated Medical Education (Amendment), 2019, held that more than four attempts shall not be allowed for a candidate to pass the first professional examination. As the appellant did not pass the first professional examination despite grant of four attempts, the writ petition was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order discharging the appellant suffers from procedural irregularity and permanently thwarts the appellant's professional career and, therefore, the same warrants interference. He further submitted that certain attempts were restricted appearances or sessions in which the appellant was expressly instructed not to write certain

subjects and counting such appearances as full attempts is irrational, illegal and contrary to established principles governing academic evaluation.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the authorities have discharged the appellant strictly in accordance with the Regulations and, in as much as the validity of the said Regulations has already been upheld up to the Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

6. We have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. At the outset, it is apposite to refer to Regulation No.7.7 of the Regulations on Graduated Medical Education (Amendment), 2019), which reads thus:

"7.7. 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."

6. The validity of the said regulation was upheld by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sachin & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.1, observing that the petitioners therein had failed to dislodge the presumption of constitutionality existing in favour of the impugned Regulations. It was further observed that the petitioners do not have a legitimate or a vested right to get a degree or get another attempt.

7. Challenge to the said decision of the Delhi High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court vide order dated 10.2.2023 passed in SLP (C) No.22716 of 2022.

8. The appellant did not place on record any provision which permits relaxing the said Regulation and affords one additional chance to the candidate to clear the first Professional Examination, even on sympathetic considerations. When the authorities have categorically opined that the appellant had exhausted the maximum attempts 1 MANU/DE/5462/2022

permissible, the writ court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision and once again analyze whether the attempt was a restricted attempt or a regular attempt. In any event, the educational authorities are the best qualified persons to assess the academic performance of a student. The order of the learned Single Judge, in our view, does not warrant any interference.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 26.03.2026 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No sasi

To: