Universities cannot prejudice students by failing to conduct supplementary examinations within a reasonable time.

The petitioner, a B.A.M.S. student, had earlier filed CWJC No. 13193 of 2026 challenging Notification No. 4082 dated 15 July 2026 issued by the Controller of Examinations, Aryabhatta Knowledge University (“AKU”), and seeking permission to appear in the 3rd Year Final Professional Examination despite having failed in papers of the 2nd Professional Examination.

By order dated 25 August 2026, the Court directed AKU and the concerned colleges to permit students who had failed in one or two subjects of the 2nd Professional Examination to appear in the ongoing 3rd Professional Examination.

It also directed that a special examination be held for students who could not appear in the Kaya Chikitsa Paper-I examination scheduled for 25 August 2026, and that the 2nd Supplementary Examination be conducted within a reasonable time.

The petitioner subsequently contended that she and other similarly situated students had failed in four papers and had not been permitted to appear in the ongoing 3rd Professional Examination.

It was argued that the 2nd Supplementary Examination had never been conducted, although it would have provided the students an opportunity to clear their papers before the 3rd Professional Examination.

The respondents admitted that the 2nd Supplementary Examination had not yet been held, while asserting that the University was following its own examination rules.

Whether students who had failed in four papers of the 2nd Professional B.A.M.S. Examination could be permitted to appear in the 3rd Year Final Professional Examination when the 2nd Supplementary Examination had not been conducted?

Whether the order dated 25 August 2026 required modification to prevent the petitioner and similarly situated students from losing an academic year due to the University’s failure to conduct the 2nd Supplementary Examination within a reasonable time?

The Court applied the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 and the Notification dated 16 February 2022, particularly Regulation/Clause 11(b)(ii), which contemplated the conduct of two supplementary examinations between the main professional examinations and, after declaration of the 2nd Supplementary Examination result, permitted eligible students to proceed to the next professional examination.

The Court also considered Clause 11(b)(iii), which was relied upon by the respondents to oppose participation in the 3rd Professional Examination.

The governing principle applied was that students should not suffer academic prejudice for an institutional failure to conduct a prescribed supplementary examination within a reasonable or scheduled period.

The Court found that the petitioner’s inability to clear four papers could not be considered in isolation from the University’s admitted failure to conduct the 2nd Supplementary Examination.

Had the supplementary examination been held within a reasonable time, the petitioner and similarly situated students would have had an opportunity to clear their unsuccessful papers before the 3rd Professional Examination.

Applying the protective principle that an administrative or institutional lapse cannot unjustly deprive students of an academic year, the Court held that Clause 11(b)(iii) could not operate mechanically against the students in circumstances where the prerequisite supplementary examination had not been conducted.

The Court therefore expanded the earlier relief, which had been limited to students failing in one or two subjects, to include the present petitioner and other identically situated students who had failed in four papers.

The order dated 25 August 2026 was modified, and AKU and the concerned college authorities were directed to permit the petitioner and all other identically situated students to participate in the 3rd Year Final Professional Examination.

Their examination results were made subject to their subsequently clearing the unsuccessful papers in the 2nd Supplementary Examination.

The University’s counsel was requested to communicate the order to the concerned respondents forthwith.