Rajasthan HC Dismisses MBBS Aspirant's Appeal After 14 Years of Failed Attempts, Citing Public Interest in Patient Safety

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the special appeal of an MBBS aspirant who had failed to clear the course in fourteen years, rejecting his hardship plea on public interest grounds.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma, on 13 July 2026 dismissed D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 494/2023 filed by Sheikh Tarique, an MBBS aspirant from Manipur who had been unable to complete the degree after enrolling at NIMS University, Jaipur in 2010. The bench upheld the Single Judge's order of 18 April 2023, which had dismissed Tarique's writ petition seeking permission to sit for the remaining two subjects of the MBBS Final Professional Part-II Examination. Even after the Division Bench itself, during the pendency of the appeal, granted him one additional opportunity to appear in the examination in early 2024, Tarique failed again. The bench held that sympathy for financial hardship cannot override the public interest in ensuring minimum medical competence, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Sheikh Tarique had taken admission in the MBBS course at NIMS University in 2010. Over the following years, he appeared repeatedly at every stage of the programme but could not clear it entirely. By March 2020, he had passed Surgery and Paediatrics in the Final Professional Part-II Supplementary Examination, but remained stuck on Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynaecology.

Through his writ petition before the Single Judge, he sought a direction to NIMS University to permit him to sit for those two remaining subjects. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 18 April 2023, giving three reasons: the appellant had not cleared the course in thirteen years; Clause 7.6(ii) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 capped the permitted time at ten years; and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sachin & Ors. v. Union of India, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, supported that position.

Tarique then filed the present special appeal before the Division Bench at Jaipur.

The Retrospectivity Argument

The central legal contention, pressed both before the Single Judge and the Division Bench, was that when Tarique took admission in 2010, the applicable regulations prescribed no outer time limit for completing the MBBS course. He argued that the ten-year cap introduced by the 2019 Amendment Regulations could not be applied retrospectively to students already enrolled before that amendment.

In support, his counsel pointed to a communication dated 12 September 2022 from the National Medical Commission itself, which had acknowledged that there was no restriction or time cap within which a student could complete the course prior to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 2019.

For the respondents, counsel relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Sachin & Ors. v. Union of India and its affirmation by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench, in its interim order of 30 January 2024, noted that the facts in Sachin differed because those students had taken admission in 2019, the same year the amended regulations came into force. The bench therefore treated the legal question as not fully settled by that precedent in Tarique's case.

The Court-Granted Opportunity and Its Outcome

Recognising that a young student's career was at stake, the Division Bench by its interim order dated 30 January 2024 directed NIMS University to permit Tarique to participate in the MBBS 3rd Professional Part-II Examinations scheduled from 1 February 2024 to 15 February 2024. The result was to be placed before the court in a sealed cover.

When the matter was taken up on 13 July 2026, counsel for the respondents tendered the result dated 12 March 2024. The bench took it on record as Annexure-A. It showed that Tarique had failed yet again in the MBBS Examination 3rd Professional Part-II, Batch 2010.

This outcome, the bench observed, had a direct bearing on the principal legal argument. Even proceeding entirely in Tarique's favour on the retrospectivity question — assuming no time cap governed his batch — the fact remained that he had failed in every attempt, including the one secured through the court's own interim indulgence.

The bench's academic record table, reconstructed from the appeal papers, traced a consistent pattern across fourteen years. In June 2011 he failed the 1st Year Examination overall, passing only Physiology. He passed the remaining 1st Year subjects in August 2011. He failed the 2nd Professional Examination in March 2013, partially cleared it in January 2014, and fully passed it by March 2014. From January 2015 onward, he attempted the Final Professional Part-I repeatedly — failing in April 2015, passing ENT in December 2015, failing again in April 2016, passing Ophthalmology in December 2017, and finally passing Community Medicine in December 2019. In March 2020 he passed Surgery and Paediatrics in Part-II but failed Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynaecology. And in February 2024, given an additional court-ordered chance at Part-II, he failed once more.

Public Interest Over Financial Hardship

With the retrospectivity argument rendered largely academic by the failed 2024 attempt, what remained before the bench was Tarique's plea of hardship: that his career would be jeopardised and that he had borrowed from various sources to fund his admission and tuition.

The bench declined to accept this as a ground for interference. It distinguished between sympathy and judicial relief, observing that the MBBS qualification is not merely an academic credential — it is a licence to treat patients. The bench stated that a court cannot remain unmindful of the fate of patients who would be treated by a physician who has been unable to demonstrate the minimum competence prescribed, despite attempts spread over fourteen years.

The bench observed that a patient made aware of such an academic record would justifiably dread the consequences of treatment by such a physician. Financial loss to the appellant, while acknowledged, could not override that larger public interest.

The Bench's Reasoning on Clause 7.6(ii)

The bench held that Tarique's academic record made it unnecessary to dilate further on Clause 7.6(ii) of the Amended Regulations of 2019, which imposes the ten-year cap. His record, the bench said, speaks for itself. The retrospectivity question, which had been the live legal issue at the interim stage, was effectively overtaken by the facts: even on the most favourable assumption for the appellant, the additional opportunity granted had not been availed of successfully.

The bench expressed agreement with the reasoning of the Single Judge in the impugned order of 18 April 2023, adding that granting any further indulgence would run contrary to the rules and regulations governing medical education, including the 2019 Amendment Regulations, and would be misplaced on the peculiar facts of this case.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 494/2023. No order as to costs was made. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.