MBBS students limited to four first-year attempts overall, regardless of subjects attempted, Bombay High Court rules

The Petitioner was admitted to the First Year MBBS course at Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences in August 2023.

She passed the internal assessments in all subjects except Anatomy, in which she was short by two marks; consequently, she was not permitted to appear for Anatomy in the August 2024 University examination, although she appeared for Physiology and Biochemistry.

She subsequently appeared for Anatomy in the October 2024 supplementary examination and failed theory by four marks, while passing the remaining subjects.

She appeared again for Anatomy in September 2025 and December 2025, passing the practical component but failing theory on both occasions.

When she sought permission to appear for a fourth Anatomy attempt in 2026, the College refused on the ground that she had exhausted four attempts for the First Year MBBS course and had completed four years from admission.

The Petitioner challenged this refusal, contending that she had actually appeared for Anatomy only three times and that the first examination should not count as an attempt because she was ineligible to take Anatomy due to insufficient internal-assessment marks.

1. Whether the Petitioner’s appearance in the First Year MBBS University examination in subjects other than Anatomy constituted one of the four attempts permitted under Regulation 21 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023.

2. Whether the omission from Regulation 21 of the 2023 Regulations of the phrase “Partial attendance at any University examination shall be counted as an availed attempt,” contained in Regulation 11.2.7(2) of the 1997 Regulations, entitled the Petitioner to a fourth attempt in Anatomy.

3. Whether Rajkumarsingh S/o. Dr. K. B. Singh v. Amravati University, Amravati & Anr., 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 627, supported exclusion of the Petitioner’s first examination from the calculation of attempts.

The Court applied Regulation 21 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which provides that, under no circumstances, a student may be allowed more than four attempts for the first year or First Professional MBBS course and may not continue the undergraduate medical course beyond nine years from admission.

The Court contrasted this provision with Regulations 11.2.6 and 11.2.7(2) of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997, as amended in 2019, under which four attempts were available to clear the First Professional examination within four years and partial attendance at any University examination counted as an attempt.

The Court held that Regulation 21 imposes a limit of four attempts for the First Year MBBS course as a whole, not four attempts calculated separately subject-wise, and that the omission of the earlier phrase concerning partial attendance did not alter that result.

Rajkumarsingh was distinguished because it concerned a student who could not appear at an examination owing to detention for want of attendance and who was therefore not issued an admission card; it did not concern a student who actually appeared in other subjects in the examination.

The Court construed the words “four attempts for first year (First Professional MBBS)” in Regulation 21 according to their plain meaning.

The provision limits the number of attempts for the First Year course, irrespective of the particular subjects attempted in each examination, rather than limiting attempts separately for Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry.

Although the Petitioner did not appear for Anatomy in August 2024, she had appeared in Physiology and Biochemistry in that First Year examination. Therefore, that examination constituted an attempt for the First Year MBBS course.

Together with her appearances in Anatomy in October 2024, September 2025 and December 2025, the Petitioner had exhausted four attempts.

The absence of the “partial attendance” wording from the 2023 Regulations did not assist her because the four-attempt prohibition in Regulation 21 independently applied to the First Year course as a whole.

The principle applied in Rajkumarsingh was inapplicable since the Petitioner had not been prevented from appearing in the examination altogether; she had actually appeared in two First Year subjects.

The reliance on Rajkumarsingh was rejected as misplaced.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.