An MBBS student who had used four First Professional examination opportunities could not claim another Anatomy attempt merely because she had written that subject only three times, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla delivered the oral judgment for himself and Justice R. I. Chagla, dismissing Aarya Avinash Patil’s petition against Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and the other respondents.
“Once this is the position, the student can be allowed only four attempts of the first year MBBS, irrespective of the subjects in which the student may have appeared in each of those attempts.”
— Para 24
Why it matters. Regulation 21 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 speaks of four attempts for the first year, not four attempts per subject. A partial sitting therefore consumes an attempt even though the 2023 text no longer repeats the old regulation’s express sentence about partial attendance.
Four attempts, not four Anatomy papers
Patil entered the First Year MBBS course in August 2023. She fell two marks short in the Anatomy internal assessment and therefore wrote the August 2024 university examination only in the other eligible subjects. She later sat Anatomy in October 2024, September 2025 and December 2025, passing the practical component in the latter two sittings but not the theory paper.
She argued that August 2024 could not count for Anatomy and that the omission of the phrase “Partial attendance at any University examination shall be counted as an availed attempt” from the 2023 Regulations entitled her to one more try.
The court read the proviso to Regulation 21 according to its plain language: under no circumstances may a student receive more than four attempts for First Professional MBBS. Since Patil had actually appeared in Physiology and Biochemistry in August 2024, that sitting counted at the first-year level.
The judgment
Patil relied on Rajkumarsingh v. Amravati University, where a student had not been admitted to an examination because of deficient attendance and later lost opportunities while awaiting a result. The Bench distinguished that case: Rajkumarsingh had not actually taken the disputed sitting, whereas Patil had written two first-year subjects.
Because Regulation 21 itself resolved the case, the court did not examine the Competency Based Medical Education Curriculum Guidelines. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
“The words used in Regulation 21 are totally clear and refer to four attempts for the first year, irrespective of the subjects that are attempted in any of these attempts, and the omission of the aforesaid words does not change that position.”
— Para 25
“On the other hand, in the present case before us, the Petitioner actually appeared for the first year MBBS examination in Physiology and Biochemistry, and, therefore, that would definitely be counted as one of the four attempts made by the Petitioner.”
— Para 29