Karnataka High Court
Ms. Sheethal S Patil vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... on 6 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NO.53 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MS. SHEETHAL S PATIL
D/O MR. SHIVA MURTHY N.
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
UNI REG No.18M4278
STUDYING MBBS COURSE FROM
S S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND RESEARCH OF CENTRE
S O G COLONY
RAMANAGARA
DAVANAGERE-577 003
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE-CHANCELLOR
2. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
-
2
3. S S INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND RESEARCH CENTRE
S O G COLONY
RAMANAGARA
DAVANAGERE-577 003
BY ITS DEAN/PRINCIPAL
4. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
PACKET-14, SECTION-8
DWARAKA PHASE-1
NEW DELHI-110 077
BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT
IN W.A. No.1593 OF 2023 (EDN-RES) AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
REVIEW PETITION.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment dated 12.01.2024, passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1593/2023 (EDN-RES).
2. We have heard Shri. Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, Shri. B.S Sachin, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri. N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner contends that the Division Bench of this Court proceeded based on the learned Single Judge's observation that the appellant did not have the required 75% attendance. However, this finding is contrary to the record. The certificate dated 19.10.2022 issued by the respondent - College confirms that the petitioner completed Phase II online classes and there is no assertion from the respondents that the required attendance was lacking. The
-
4 respondent's contention that passing the 1st MBBS Examination is mandatory for continuation in the 2nd year overlooks the fact that the appellant has completed the requisite classes, obtained the college certificate and appeared for the 1st MBBS Examination. The Court relied on the observation regarding attendance without considering the certificate and documents placed on record. The judgment of Bombay High Court in Ravi Shinde and others v. Medical Council of India and another reported in (2008) 2 MhLJ 746, relied on by the Division Bench of this Court has no application in the instant case.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/National Medical Commission, would, on the other hand, contend that the review petitioner was not entitled to be promoted to 2nd MBBS since she has not passed the 1st MBBS examination. It is submitted that the review petitioner having been admitted in the year 2018 took four years to complete 1st MBBS course and the review petitioner could not be promoted to 2nd MBBS course before the date of her passing 1st MBBS examination which was in July 2022. The
-
5 petitioner having passed 1st MBBS course in July 2022 was required to complete 2nd phase MBBS course of 18 months before being eligible to appear for the 2nd phase MBBS Examination. Therefore, she would be eligible to appear for the 2nd phase MBBS Examination only in December 2023. By an interim order dated 03.02.2023, the Court had permitted the petitioner to take up the 2nd MBBS Examination scheduled on 04.02.2023 which was only 7 months from the date when the petitioner having passed the 1st MBBS Examination. The petitioner took the said examination and failed. Thereafter, she secured another interim order on 04.07.2023 to undertake the supplementary examination. She appeared in the said supplementary examination. The result was made available to the Court in a sealed cover. However, the writ petition was heard and dismissed on 04.10.2023. Therefore, it is apparent that since the petitioner had passed the 1st MBBS examination in July 2022, she could have taken the second MBBS examination only after 18 months from passing the 1st MBBS examination. Thereafter, after passing the second MBBS
-
6 examination she would have to attend the third MBBS classes and finish the same.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 has placed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ravi Shinde's case (supra) for our consideration.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/NMC supports the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and submits that the interim orders granted by this Court during the pendency of Writ Petition, which was later dismissed and during the pendency of this Review Petition cannot enure to the benefit of the review petitioner since the Regulations and Course Structure are clear. It is contended that the academic record of the review petitioner would make it clear that she was unable to clear her exams even after repeated attempts and that no discretion can be exercised in favour of the review petitioner since it would be against the larger public interest to permit such a student to practice medicine.
-
7
7. We have considered the contentions advanced. A synopsis has been placed on record by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, showing the details of the MBBS Course-Structure and Eligibility as well as the facts of the instant case, the same reads as follows:-
"SYNOPSIS MBBS COURSE-STRUCTURE AND ELIGIBILITY NOTE: EACH SEMESTER IS HELD FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS PHASE SEMESTER/TERM EXAM TYPE/ HELD ELIGIBILITY I Professional Undertaken 12 months examination Held after academic course I 1st & 2nd Completion of 2nd Semester/Term II Professional Ought to have passed all examination Held after subjects in Phase-I, and Has II 3rd, 4th, 5th Completion of 5th compulsorily complete 18 Semester/Term months of training after passing Phase-I. III Professional Ought to have passed all III examination Part-I, Held subjects in Phase-II, and Has (PART- 6th & 7th after Completion of 7th to compulsorily complete 12 I) Semester/Term months of training after passing Phase-II.
III Professional Passing of Phase-III Examination Part-II, Held Professional examination Part- After Completion of 9th I is not compulsory to enter III Semester/Term 8th and 9th Semester/Term. (PART- However passing of Phase-III II) Professional examination Part-
I is compulsory to undertake III Professional examination Part-II CASE OF PETITIONER Student Name: Sheetal Patil Student Admitted: 2018-2019/RS-3 Batch Date of Admission:- 31.08.2018 Regular Batch students completed course in the academic year 2023- 2024.
-
8 PRAYER SOUGHT IN WRIT PETITION:-
"To Declare the Petitioner to be eligible to prosecute and complete the MBBS Course of study in the regular batch including appearance in the examinations, without any interruption".
PHASE-I EXAMINATION:-
• Conducted in the month of June-2019, Petitioner appeared as regular student and failed to clear Phase-l in the regular Batch.
• Re-appeared for supplementary in the month of October-2019 and failed.
• Re-appeared in the month of November-2020, March- 2021, September-2021, February-2022, May-2022 and failed.
• Passed Phase-l in the examination held in the month of July-2022.
PHASE-II EXAMINATION:-
• Filed W.P.No.2682 of 2023 on 03.02.2023 seeking for the relief to appear for 2nd year MBBS (PHASE-II/5th Term/semester along with regular batch). Secured interim order dated 03.02.2023 to appear for 2nd year MBBS i.e. PHASE-II/5th Sem.
• On the strength of Interim order in W.P.No.2682 of 2023 appear for PHASE-II exams held in the month of Feb-2023 and fails.
• Secures another interim order on 04.07.2023 to undertake supplementary exams.
• Appears in supplementary exams conducted in the month of July-2023.
• W.P.No.2682 of 2023 was dismissed on 04.10.2023. Results were not announced as the W.P. stood dismissed.
• W.A.No.1593 was dismissed on 12.01.2024.
INSTANT REVIEW PETITION:
• On 04.07.2024, This Hon'ble Court directed the University to produce the PHASE-II examination results of the Petitioner in sealed cover.
• On 07.08.2024, The sealed cover was opened and its was found that the Petitioner had passed in the PHASE- II examinations. Further this Hon'ble Court permitted the Petitioner to undertake PHASE-III examinations held in the month of August-2024 .
• On 12.03.2025, This Hon'ble Court directed the University to declare the results of the Petitioner.
-9
• The Petitioner failed in PHASE-III examination which she had undertaken in the month of August-2024.
PETITIONER COURSE-TIMELINE
Sl. PHASE PRESCRIBED COURSE PASSING OF
No. COURSE UNDERTAKEN PHASE
DURATION BY EXAM/MONTH
PETITIONER YEAR
PHASE- 12 Months (2 12 Months (2) JULY-2022
1.
I Terms/Semesters) semesters)
PHASE- 8 Months (Did JULY-2023
II not undertake Results Declared
18 Months (3)
2. 18 months) by
Terms/Semesters)
R.P.Order/Sealed
Cover order
PHASE- Did not pursue
III academic
course,
undertook
12 Months (2)
3. examination by
Terms/Semesters)
way of an order
dated
07.08.2024 in
the instant R.P.
8. The Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (1994) 4 SCC 401, has held that the regulations framed by the Medical Council have a statutory force and are mandatory. This view was reiterated in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120. In Jyotis Cherian John and Ors v. Baba Farid University of Health Science and Ors passed in Writ Petition No.15899/2002 dated 27.02.2003, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that the University had the jurisdiction to lay down conditions for admission to the next
-10
higher class/phase of a professional course for maintaining the standards of medical education in the colleges affiliated to it.
9. The Bombay High Court in Ravi Shinde's case (supra), has clearly held as under:-
"17. In the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.17899 of 2004 in Amarbir Singh s/o S. Kashmir Singh and Ors. v. Baba Farid University of Health Science, Faridkot, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was considering similar question. After considering the relevant decisions on the point, it was held that 18 months' course of studies before a candidate can be permitted to take the second MBBS professional examination, must commence to run after a candidate has fully qualified the first MBBS professional examination. It was further held that the course pursued by the students prior to qualifying the first MBBS professional examination cannot be clubbed with the course pursued by them after having cleared the first MBBS professional examination so as to compute 18 months' mandatory training period before they can be allowed to appear in the second MBBS professional examination.
18. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. Once it is accepted that Medical Council of India is duty bound to supervise and maintain standard of medical education, its regulations will have to be so construed as to achieve its objective. The 1997
-11
Regulations would, therefore, reflect Medical Council's anxiety to ensure that minimum standards of medical education prescribed by it are controlled. The 1997 Regulations are, therefore, held to be mandatory. Any lowering of eligibility norms would have adverse effect on medical education. Regulation 7(7), therefore, cannot be so read as to do away with the requirement of completing 18 months' mandatory training before taking second MBBS professional examination."
10. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court has considered the facts as well as the contentions raised by the parties and has clearly come to the conclusion that in the light of the regulations, the petitioners could have taken the second MBBS examination only after completing 18 months of study after passing the 1st MBBS Course.
11. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interim orders granted during the pendency of the writ petition which came to be dismissed, or during the pendency of this review petition cannot help the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner will now have to attempt her second Phase Examination and if she passes the same, she will have to complete the further course of study if the
-
12 regulations permit the same. We are unable to accept that there is any error in the judgment under review. There is no merit in the review petition. The review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*