Aarya Avinash Patil vs Maharashtra University Of Health Sciences Nashik And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010236252026
2026:BHC-AS:35540-DB
1 -wp-7366-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7366 OF 2026
Aarya Avinash Patil ...Petitioner
Vs.
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
Nashik and Others ...Respondents
-----------------
Ms. Pooja V. Thorat a/w. Mr. Aman Bodke i/b. Mr. A. Qoreshi, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Ganesh Gole, for Respondent No.2 – BMC.
Mr. Amar Bodke, for Respondent No.3.
-----------------
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
AMAR
KALE
Date:
2026.08.31
15:55:01
+0530
MAMTA
AMAR
KALE
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 20 AUGUST, 2026
st
PRONOUNCED ON : 31 AUGUST, 2026
ORAL JUDGEMENT (per FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking various reliefs.
However, the relief pressed by the Petitioner is for an order and direction
permitting the Petitioner to appear for the theory and practical examination
in the subject Anatomy conducted by Respondent No.1 – Maharashtra
University of Health Sciences (“MUHS”).
Mamta Kale 1 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
2 -wp-7366-2026.doc
FACTS
2. The Petitioner had appeared for NEET-UG-2023 and was
admitted to Respondent No.3 College, viz., Vedantaa Institute of Medical
Sciences.
3. After she was admitted to the First Year MBBS Course at the
Respondent No.3 College in August 2023, Respondent No.3 conducted
internal assessments and the Petitioner appeared for the same. The
Petitioner passed in all the subjects but was two marks short in the subject
of Anatomy at the internal assessment conducted in August 2024. In view
of the Guidelines framed by the Under Graduate Medical Board, every
candidate is required to pass the internal assessments for being eligible to
appear for the theory and practical examination to be conducted by MUHS.
Accordingly, the Petitioner filled the examination form and appeared for the
theory and practical examination in all subjects, except Anatomy.
4. The results of this examination conducted in August 2024 were
declared in September 2024 and the Petitioner was declared to have failed
in all subjects. The Petitioner immediately appeared for the supplementary
examination in October 2024 and appeared for the theory and practical
examination of Anatomy for the first time after admission.
5. The Petitioner was declared to have failed by four marks in the
Anatomy theory. However, the Petitioner passed in all other subjects,
including “Physiology” and “Biochemistry”, thereby making Anatomy as the
Mamta Kale 2 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
3 -wp-7366-2026.doc
only subject pending for being promoted to the Second Year MBBS course.
6. The Petitioner was allowed for the second time to appear for
the Anatomy theory and practical examination in September 2025.
However, though she passed in the practical examination by securing
53/100, she failed in the theory examination.
7. The Petitioner appeared for the third time for the theory and
practical examination of Anatomy in December 2025. The Petitioner passed
in the practical examination but failed in the Anatomy theory examination
by ten marks.
8. It is the case of the Petitioner that, as the Petitioner had
appeared for the theory and practical examination in the subject Anatomy
only three times after being admitted to the First Year MBBS course, she
approached Respondent No.3 College to inquire about the schedule for
filling up of the examination form for August 2026 examination for her
pending Anatomy theory and practical examination.
9. However, Respondent No.3 College informed her that, even
though the Petitioner had appeared for the Anatomy paper only three times,
she was not allowed another attempt to clear the pending theory and
practical examination of Anatomy subject as she had expended four years
from her date of admission. Respondent No.3 College also supplied to the
th
Petitioner a copy of a letter dated 11 July 2024 circulated by MUHS to all
affiliated Colleges. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said letter is
Mamta Kale 3 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
4 -wp-7366-2026.doc
based on the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997, as
amended in 2019 (1997 Regulations), which were now superseded. The
st
Petitioner, therefore, by a letter dated 1 March 2026 requested Respondent
No.3 College to allow her to appear for the theory and practical
examination of Anatomy for the fourth time.
10. It is the case of the Petitioner that, till date, the Respondent
No.3 College had not responded to the said letter, and, therefore, in these
circumstances, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES.
11. Ms. Pooja Thorat, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner, referred to Regulations 11.2.6 and 11.2.7 of the 1997
Regulations. Ms. Thorat submitted that Regulation 11.2.7 (2) provided that
a maximum number of four permissible attempts would be available to
clear the first Professional University examination, whereby the first
Professional course will have to be cleared within four years of admission to
the said course. It further provided that partial attendance at any
University examination shall be counted as an availed attempt.
12. Ms. Thorat next submitted that the aforesaid 1997 Regulations
were superseded by the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023
(2023 Regulations), framed by the National Medical Commission, in
exercise of powers conferred upon it under National Medical Commission
Mamta Kale 4 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
5 -wp-7366-2026.doc
Act, 2019. Ms. Thorat drew our attention to Regulation 21 of the 2023
Regulations and more importantly to the proviso thereto. Ms. Thorat
submitted that the proviso to Regulation 21 provided that, under no
circumstances, the student shall be allowed more than four (04) attempts
for first year (First Professional MBBS) and no student shall be allowed to
continue undergraduate medical course after nine (09) years from the date
of admission into the course.
13. Ms. Thorat submitted that, very importantly, the words “Partial
attendance at any University examination shall be counted as an availed
attempt”, which were found in Regulation 11.2.7(2) of the 1997
Regulations, are not found in Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations.
14. Ms. Thorat submitted that, in these circumstances, the first
examination given by the Petitioner in August 2024, where she was not
eligible to give the Anatomy paper because she had not get the necessary
marks in the internal assessments, should not be taken into account to
count the attempts that the Petitioner had given. Ms. Thorat submitted that
the Petitioner had, in fact, appeared for the Anatomy paper only three times
and, therefore, she is entitled to give the fourth attempt. Ms. Thorat
submitted that the Respondent No.3 College and MUHS had wrongly
prevented the Petitioner from giving the fourth attempt in Anatomy. Ms.
Thorat submitted that, in these circumstances, the Respondents be directed
to permit the Petitioner to give the fourth attempt in Anatomy.
Mamta Kale 5 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
6 -wp-7366-2026.doc
15. In support of her submissions, Ms. Thorat relied upon a
Judgement of this Court in Rajkumarsingh S/o. Dr. K. B. Singh Vs. Amravati
University , Amravati and Another 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 627 .
16. On the other hand, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf
of the Respondents, vehemently opposed the granting of any relief in the
Petition. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, the learned Advocate appeared for MUHS
(Respondent No.1). Mr. Ganesh Gole, the learned Advocate, appeared for
the National Medical Commission (Respondent No.2) and Mr. Amar Bodke,
the learned Advocate, appeared for Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences
(Respondent No.3).
17. The learned Advocates for the Respondents submitted that the
omission of the words “Partial attendance at any University examination
shall be counted as an availed attempt” from Regulation 21 of the 2023
Regulations did not make any difference to the case of the Petitioner. The
learned Advocates for the Respondents submitted that the proviso to
Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations provided that, under no
circumstances, the student shall be allowed more than four attempts for
first year (First Professional MBBS) and no student shall be allowed to
continue undergraduate medical course after nine years from the date of
admission into the course. The learned Advocates for the Respondents
submitted that, therefore, Regulation 21 categorically provided that, under
no circumstances, a student shall be allowed more than four attempts for
Mamta Kale 6 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
7 -wp-7366-2026.doc
the first year of the MBBS course. They submitted that the Petitioner had
already given four attempts for first year MBBS course.
18. In these circumstances, by virtue of the provisions of the
proviso to Regulation 21, the Petitioner was rightly not permitted to give
another attempt in Anatomy. The learned Advocates for the Respondents
also referred to the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum
(CBME) Guidelines published by the Undergraduate Medical Education
Board of the National Medical Commission.
19. The learned Advocates for the Respondents also submitted that
the Judgement of this Court in Rajkumarsingh (Supra) cited by Ms. Thorat
was clearly distinguishable on facts.
20. The learned Advocates for the Respondents submitted that, in
these circumstances, the Petition ought to be dismissed with costs.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
21. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
perused the documents on record.
22. Before we consider the rival arguments of the parties, it would
be appropriate to set out the relevant Regulations. Regulations 11.2.6 and
th
11.2.7 of the 1997 Regulations (as amended on 4 November 2019) read as
under:
Mamta Kale 7 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
8 -wp-7366-2026.doc
11.2.6 - A learner shall not be entitled to graduate after 10
years of his/her joining of the first part of the MBBS course.
11.2.7 – University Examination shall be held as under:
(a) First Professional
1. The first Professional examination shall be held at
the end of first Professional training (1 + 12 months), in
the subjects of Human Anatomy, Physiology and
Biochemistry.
2. A maximum number of four permissible attempts
would be available to clear the first Professional University
examination, whereby the first Professional course will have
to be cleared within 4 years of admission to the said course.
Partial attendance at any University examination shall be
counted as an availed attempt.
23. Further, Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations reads as
under :
21. Training period and maximum duration – Every
student admitted in accordance with these Regulations,
shall undergo training as per the guidelines published by
the UGMEB of NMC and displayed on the NMC website
from time to time;
Provided under no circumstances, the student shall be
allowed more than four (04) attempts for first year (First
Professional MBBS) and no student shall be allowed to
Mamta Kale 8 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
9 -wp-7366-2026.doc
continue undergraduate medical course after nine (09)
years from the date of admission into the course.
24. Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations provides that, under no
circumstances, the student shall be allowed more than four attempts for the
first year (First Professional MBBS). It is important to note that the
Regulation provides that the student shall not be allowed more than four
attempts for the first year of MBBS and does not restrict the limit to
attempts made in different subjects as is submitted by the Petitioner. Once
this is the position, the student can be allowed only four attempts of the
first year MBBS, irrespective of the subjects in which the student may have
appeared in each of those attempts.
25. Further, the omission of the words “Partial attendance at any
University examination shall be counted as an availed attempt”, which were
found in Regulation 11.2.7(2) of the 1997 Regulations, from the 2023
Regulations, does not change the plain wording of Regulation 21 which
clearly provides that, under no circumstances, the student shall be allowed
more than four attempts for the first year (First Professional MBBS). The
words used in Regulation 21 are totally clear and refer to four attempts for
the first year, irrespective of the subjects that are attempted in any of these
attempts, and the omission of the aforesaid words does not change that
position.
Mamta Kale 9 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
10 -wp-7366-2026.doc
26. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has
admittedly given four attempts of first year MBBS. In these circumstances,
by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations, the
Petitioner cannot be allowed one more attempt in Anatomy as sought by the
Petitioner. The Petitioner has already been allowed four attempts for the
first year MBBS and cannot be allowed any more attempt.
27. Since the 2023 Regulations are very clear and we have decided
the case on the basis of these Regulations, we do not feel it necessary to
advert to the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum (CBME)
Guidelines published by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board of the
National Medical Commission.
28. This leads us to deal with the Judgement of this Court in
Rajkumarsingh (Supra) relied upon by Ms. Thorat. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the
said Judgement are relevant and are set out hereunder:
“4. Ordinance 55 of the Amravati University deals with
the examination leading to the degree of Bachelor of
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) and Clause 16
of the said Ordinance reads as under :-
"An examinee who does not pass or fails to present
himself at the (Prathama Aayu : Shalya Vigyan Snatak)
(First M.B.B.S.) examination in the four consecutive
examinations inclusive of first, shall not be allowed to
prosecute his studies for the (Aayu Shalya Vigyan
Snatak) (First M.B.B.S. Course) provided that a person
Mamta Kale 10 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
11 -wp-7366-2026.doc
may be permitted to take examination after the said
examinations if he produces a certificate from the
Dean/Principal of Medical College to the effect that he
was under the treatment of Physician or Surgeon in
the College Hospital and as such was not in a position
to present himself for an examination.”
5. The question before us is, whether the petitioner in
the facts aforesaid, can be said to be an examinee who
has not passed or failed to present himself at the first
M.B.B.S. examination in four consecutive examinations
inclusive of first, and if the answer is in affirmative,
then the petitioner could be not allowed to prosecute
his studies being precluded under Clause 16 of the
Ordinance 55. The expression "Examinee" is defined in
Ordinance No. 6 which deals with the examinations in
general and Clause (vi) of Ordinance 6 defines
'examinee' to mean a person who presents himself for
an examination to which he has been admitted.
"Admission to an Examination" has also been defined
in Clause (ii) of Ordinance 6 which means, the
issuance of an admission card to a candidate in token
of his having complied with all the conditions laid
down in the relevant Ordinance, by a competent
Officer of the University, provided that a candidate
who does not fulfil all the conditions may, at the
discretion of a competent Officer of the University, be
admitted provisionally and, in case all conditions are
not fulfilled by him, his admission shall be liable to be
Mamta Kale 11 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
12 -wp-7366-2026.doc
cancelled. The term "Examinee" occurring in Clause 16
of Ordinance No. 55, in our view, has to be read in the
light of the definition of examinee in Clause (vi) of
Ordinance 6 and the definition of "admission to an
examination" occurring in Clause (ii) of Ordinance 6.
By giving that meaning to the word "examinee"
occurring in Clause 16 of Ordinance 55, it is clear that
only that applicant who submits application to the
University in the form prescribed for admission to
examination, becomes the examinee when an
admission card has been issued to him in token of his
having complied with all the conditions laid down in
the relevant Ordinance. "Applicant" is also defined in
clause (iii) of Ordinance 6 which means, a person who
has submitted an application to the University in the
form prescribed for admission to an examination.
Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 debars prosecution of
studies for the first M.B.B.S. course to an examinee
who does not pass or fails to present himself at the
first examination in the four consecutive examinations
inclusive of first. The word "examinee" occurring in
clause 16 has to be read in contradiction to the words
"applicant" and "candidate" since all the three
expressions viz. "examinee", "applicant" and
"candidate" have been given different meaning and
defined differently under Ordinance 6. The expression
"examinee" under clause 16 of Ordinance 55,
therefore, has to be read as a person who presents
himself for an examination to which he has been
Mamta Kale 12 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
13 -wp-7366-2026.doc
admitted and admission to examination means the
issuance of admission card to a candidate in token of
his having complied with all the conditions laid down
in the relevant Ordinance. Can it be said, in view of
the specific definition of "examinee" in clause (vi) of
Ordinance 6 that a person who is not issued an
admission card for admission to an examination to be
an examinee under clause 16 of the Ordinance 55. Our
answer shall be simply in negative. Clause 16 of
Ordinance 55 is only applicable to an examinee who
has not passed or failed to present himself at the first
M.B.B.S. examination in four consecutive examinations
and not to other applicants or candidates who, for any
reason, could not pass or failed to present themselves
at the first examination in the four consecutive
examinations inclusive of first.
6. In view of the aforesaid construction of clause 16
of Ordinance 55, when we turn to the facts of the case,
there is no dispute that the petitioner could not appear
in the examination which were held in Winter 1992,
because he was detained for want of requisite
attendance. Naturally, when the petitioner was
detained for want of requisite attendance, he could not
apply for admission in examination and no admission
card was issued and, therefore, the examinations in
winter 1992 could not be considered as an
examination having been taken or the examination in
which the petitioner did not pass or failed to present
Mamta Kale 13 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
14 -wp-7366-2026.doc
himself. The examination of winter 1992, therefore,
cannot be considered while considering whether the
petitioner has failed to present himself or did not pass
in the four consecutive examinations inclusive of first.
The said examination of winter 1992 cannot be
considered against the petitioner to hold him as an
examinee who has not passed or failed to present
himself at the first M.B.B.S. examination in the four
consecutive examinations, because during that time,
the petitioner's admission in the first M.B.B.S. course
stood cancelled vide communication dated 2-4-1993
and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was
pending before this Court and this Court had stayed
the effect, operation and execution of communication
dated 2-4-1993 and as a result thereof, the-petitioner
did appear in the examination of summer 1993, but
his result was not declared thereafter but was only
declared on 25-10-1994 and the examination of winter
1994 was to begin from 26-10-1994. When the result
was declared for the first time by the respondent No. 1
relating examination taken by the petitioner in
summer 1993 on 25-10-1994, not only two
examinations which intervened between winter 1993
and summer 1994 could not be considered, but also
examination of winter 1994 which was to commence
only on the next date ie. 26-10-1994 cannot be
considered to hold that he did not pass or failed to
present himself in those examinations, viz. winter
1993, summer 1994 and winter 1994.
Mamta Kale 14 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
15 -wp-7366-2026.doc
7. It is well settled principle of law that the law does
not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly
do and the said principle is well expressed in legal
maxim, "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" is squarely
attracted to the facts and circumstances in the present
case. The unforeseen circumstances beyond the control
of a student, if resulted in non-appearance in the
examination, such circumstances cannot be construed
to mean that he failed to present himself at the
examination. In this view of the matter, the
examination of winter 1993, summer 1994 and winter
1994 in which according to the respondent No. 1, the
petitioner did not present himself at the examination,
cannot be considered against the petitioner and it
cannot be held that he did not pass or failed to present
himself at the examination in the four consecutive
examinations inclusive of the first.
8. Much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel
for respondent No. 1 on the expression, "four
consecutive examinations inclusive of first" appearing
in clause 16 of Ordinance 55 and he submitted that if
for any reason except the proviso of Clause 16 if the
petitioner has not presented himself in examination, it
has to be considered that he has failed to present
himself at the examination so that only then the
effective meaning could be given to the expression
"four consecutive examinations", otherwise, the word
Mamta Kale 15 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
16 -wp-7366-2026.doc
"consecutive" is rendered redundant. We are not at all
impressed by this argument. The expression "four
consecutive examinations", if read in the light of the
context, it would be clear that once an examinee i.e. a
student applies for admission to examination and he is
issued admission card and then either he fails or does
not present himself at the first M.B.B.S. examination,
consecutively four times, then he is precluded from
prosecuting his studies for the first M.B.B.S. course. In
a given case, for unforeseen circumstances, if a student
is unable to apply for admission to the examination
due to accident or due to any other such circumstances
beyond his control and accordingly prevented from
taking examination, Clause 16 of Ordinance 55 cannot
be construed to mean that he is examinee and that he
has failed to present himself at the examination.
Clause 16 of the Ordinance 55 cannot be construed in
an oppressive and unreasonable manner and
preventing student from appearing for the examination
while considering whether he has not passed or failed
to present himself at the four consecutive
examinations or not.”
29. From a reading of the aforesaid Judgement, it is very clear that
it is distinguishable on facts. Rajkumarsingh (Supra) was not a case where,
as in the case of the Petitioner, the student had actually given an attempt
for the first year MBBS, but was a case where the student could not appear
in the examination of first year MBBS because he was detained for want of
Mamta Kale 16 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
17 -wp-7366-2026.doc
requisite attendance. The student ultimately could appear in the
th
examination of the Summer of 1993 but his result was not declared till 25
th
October 1994 and the examination of Winter 1994, was to began from 26
October 1994. In these circumstances, this Court held that the student,
apart from being unable to have presented himself at the two examinations
which intervened in Winter 1993 and Summer 1994, also could not attempt
the examination of Winter 1994 which was commencing on the next date of
th
declaration of results i.e. 26 October 1994. It is in these circumstances
that this Court held that the said examination could not be counted as an
attempt by the student. On the other hand, in the present case before us,
the Petitioner actually appeared for the first year MBBS examination in
Physiology and Biochemistry, and, therefore, that would definitely be
counted as one of the four attempts made by the Petitioner. For all these
reasons, the Judgement in Rajkumarsingh (Supra) does not come to the aid
of the Petitioner.
ORDER
In the aforesaid circumstances, and for all the aforesaid reasons -
a) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
b) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
Mamta Kale 17 /17
Uploaded on - 31/08/2026 Downloaded on - 31/08/2026 21:24:19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)