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

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

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

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. 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.

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.

-

• 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

-

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

-

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