Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sandeep Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:47112]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13424/2025
Sandeep Kumar S/o Hira Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of
Digon, Ps Karda, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Department Of Medical And Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. National Medical Commission, Pocket - 14, Sector - 8,
Dwarka Phase - 12, New Delhi - 110077, India
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector - 18,
Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302033,
India
4. The Principal And Controller, Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia
Medical College, District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Kanchan Jdoha for
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Mr. Piyush Sharma for
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Reserved on : 29/10/2025
Pronounced on : 12/11/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to
the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the Second
Year MBBS (Main) Examination scheduled to commence from
26.07.2025, to conduct remedial classes for all subjects, and to
allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (2 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
admitted to the MBBS Course at the Government Medical College,
Bhilwara in the year 2024. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged
against him at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Patna for offences
under Sections 407, 408, 409, and 120-B of the IPC, alleging his
involvement in the NEET examination paper leak. During the
course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remained
in judicial custody from 02.08.2024 to 21.05.2025.
2.1 Owing to his judicial custody, the petitioner could not attend
his regular classes and was consequently not permitted to appear
in the Second Year MBBS (Main) Examination. He was also placed
under suspension by order dated 17.05.2025.
2.2 Aggrieved by the said suspension order, the petitioner
preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11050/2025 before this
Court. In the said writ petition, while issuing notice, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court stayed the suspension order and directed that
the petitioner be allowed to attend the Second Year MBBS classes.
However, the petitioner's request to appear in the examination
was made subject to fulfillment of the attendance criteria as
prescribed under the NMC Regulations.
2.3 Despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner was not permitted
to appear in the Second Year MBBS Examination. Hence, the
present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned
above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the writ
petition, made the following submissions:-
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (3 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
3.1. The petitioner could not attend regular classes as he
remained in judicial custody, and the shortfall in attendance
occurred due to circumstances beyond his control.
3.2 The petitioner was arrested merely on apprehension, despite
having no involvement in the alleged NEET examination paper
leak. The charges levelled against him are yet to be proved, and
as on date, he is only facing trial. Therefore, unless and until he is
found guilty, the respondent authorities are bound to allow him to
continue his MBBS course and to appear in the regular
examinations.
3.3 The petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory
treatment by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that other
students, who also had a shortfall in attendance, were permitted
to appear in the Second Year MBBS Supplementary Examination,
whereas the petitioner has been denied the same opportunity
solely on the ground of his arrest pursuant to the said FIR.
3.4 It is further submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to
attend the Third Year MBBS classes and to take remedial classes
of MBBS II Year, he would be able to save one precious academic
year. By attending such remedial classes, the petitioner would be
in a position to make up the shortfall in attendance and thereby
become eligible to appear in both the Second Year MBBS and the
Third Year MBBS Main Examination.
3.5 No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the
petitioner is allowed to appear in the examinations after fulfilling
the requisite attendance criteria.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (4 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to attend
the Third Year MBBS classes during the current academic session
and that the respondents be directed to allow him to undertake
remedial classes to compensate for the attendance shortfall in the
Second Year MBBS course.
4. Per contra, while opposing the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents
made the following submissions:-
4.1 The petitioner has criminal antecedents and is facing serious
and grave charges pertaining to the NEET examination paper leak.
Therefore, such a student is neither entitled to sympathy nor to
the reliefs sought in the present writ petition.
4.2 As a matter of fact, the petitioner was permitted to attend
remedial classes during the current academic year; however, he
failed, of his own accord, to attend the said classes so as to meet
the required attendance criteria. Consequently, no further
opportunity to attend additional remedial classes can be extended
to him.
4.3 The minimum attendance required to become eligible for
remedial classes is 60%. The petitioner has not placed any
material on record to demonstrate that he meets this threshold.
The objective of remedial classes is merely to compensate for
attendance shortfall arising out of genuine reasons. The ground
put forth by the petitioner, his judicial custody owing to allegations
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (5 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
of involvement in a paper leak, cannot be considered a genuine
reason for relaxation.
4.4 As per the prescribed guidelines, a minimum of 75%
attendance in theory and 80% attendance in practical classes is
mandatory to be eligible to appear in the University Examination.
The petitioner admittedly failed to meet the said attendance
criteria.
4.5 The allegation of discrimination is wholly baseless. The
petitioner has sought parity with one Ali Mohammad; however, his
case is not comparable. Ali Mohammad had attended the requisite
number of remedial classes and, therefore, was permitted to
appear in the Second Year MBBS Supplementary Examination. The
petitioner, on the other hand, does not fulfill the requisite
attendance norms.
4.6 It is not the case of the petitioner that on account of judicial
custody, he could not attend the remedial classes. The petitioner
was released on bail on 27.05.2025 and the remedial classes were
conducted on May 22nd, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 29th to 31st, 2025; June 2nd
to 6th, and 7th to 24th, 2025; so also on July 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th to 12th,
14th and 16th, 2025, but the petitioner attended remedial class
only on 16.07.2025.
4.7 All the students, who were having short-fall of attendance,
were allowed to attend remedial classes, irrespective of the fact
whether any particular student was having minimum 60%
attendance or not and such decision was taken on humanitarian
grounds.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (6 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
4.6 Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court rendered in a batch of petitions led by S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17615/2024, Surendra Bishnoi v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 18.02.2025. In the said judgment, it
was observed that MBBS students, upon obtaining their degrees,
are entrusted with the responsibility of serving as doctors, and
hence, the highest standards in medical education must be
maintained as they directly affect the quality of healthcare
available to the public. It was further emphasized that strict
adherence to attendance norms is essential to ensure that medical
students acquire the necessary knowledge and practical skills to
become competent professionals. The said batch of writ petitions
was accordingly dismissed.
In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. It is noted that the petitioner remained in judicial custody
from 02.08.2024 to 21.05.2025, and on account of the same, he
could not attend the classes of the Second Year MBBS course. The
petitioner was arrested on serious allegations of being part of a
paper-leak syndicate, and for this reason, he was suspended from
the college by order dated 17.04.2025. The trial pursuant to the
said FIR has since commenced but has not yet concluded. Perhaps
considering these circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
stayed the petitioner's suspension and permitted him to attend
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (7 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
classes. The interim protection by way of stay of the suspension
order was evidently granted on the premise that the petitioner had
not been found guilty at that stage and that continuation of the
suspension could have irreparably affected his academic career.
6.1 It is further noted that a student is eligible to undertake
remedial classes only if he has at least 60% attendance but less
than the requisite 75%. It is rather surprising that the
respondents have sought to shift the burden upon the petitioner to
show that he possessed 60% attendance. In fact, attendance
records are maintained by the institution, and therefore, it was
incumbent upon the respondents to place the correct attendance
figures on record.
6.2 Be that as it may, in the absence of any specific data
regarding the attendance of the petitioner, this Court refrains from
making any conclusive observation as to the exact attendance
percentage held by him. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent that all the students,
irrespective of their attendance, were allowed to participate in the
remedial classes on humanitarian grounds. The respondents, in
their additional affidavit, have stated that a student may be
allowed to participate in classes for the Third Phase of the MBBS
programme but shall not be permitted to appear in the Phase III
Part-I examinations until all subjects of the Second Professional
Examination are cleared. Further, to become eligible for the
Second Professional Examination, the student must fulfill the
prescribed attendance requirements.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (8 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
7. This Court has no hesitation in observing that a person
pursuing a professional course such as MBBS cannot be permitted
to appear in examinations without fulfilling the norms prescribed
by the competent authorities. As stated by learned counsel for
respondents, Rules permit a student to attend the Third Year
MBBS classes; however, it simultaneously imposes a condition that
such a student shall be eligible to appear in the Third Year MBBS
Examination only upon passing all the subjects of the Second Year
MBBS and upon fulfilling the requisite attendance criteria.
8. In the judgment rendered in Surendra Bishnoi (supra), the
Coordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with MBBS students
who had taken admission in the course but had a shortfall in
attendance. In that case, there was no provision enabling such
students to undertake remedial classes. It was, therefore,
observed that in the absence of any provision for remedial classes,
the deficiency in attendance could not be condoned, and unless
the students fulfilled the prescribed attendance criteria, they could
not be permitted to appear in the subsequent examinations.
8.1. In view of the above, the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on facts and
does not materially assist them in the present case, as here, there
exists a provision for remedial classes. Looking to the fact that
petitioner has voluntarily not attended most of the remedial
classes, he does not deserve any sympathy, however, considering
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when the guidelines
itself permit and allow a student to attend remedial classes to
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47112] (9 of 9) [CW-13424/2025]
make-up the short-fall of attendance, so also looking to the
academic career of the petitioner as a young medical student, this
Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary directions in the
present writ petition.
9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of
with a direction that the petitioner may be allowed to undertake
MBBS III Year Classes and he may also be allowed to attend
remedial classes for the purpose of over-coming the short-fall of
attendance of MBBS II Year. If, after attending such remedial
classes, petitioner fulfills the required attendance criteria, he may
be allowed to appear in the MBBS II Year Examination.
10. Needless to observe that on fulfilling the attendance criteria
and also passing the MBBS II Year Examination, the petitioner
may be allowed to take-up MBBS III Year Examination.
11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
skm/-
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:02:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
