Rajasthan High Court Rejects MBBS Student's Plea After 14 Years of Repeated Failures | Sheikh Tarique v. Union of India (2026)
Rajasthan High Court Holds That Sympathy Cannot Override Public Interest in Medical Education
In a significant judgment concerning medical education, MBBS examinations, and the standards expected from future doctors, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal filed by an MBBS student seeking permission to complete his remaining examinations after repeated failures extending over almost fourteen years.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that while courts may sympathise with a student’s personal hardship, such sympathy cannot be allowed to compromise public interest, particularly where the qualification involved authorises a person to treat patients.
The judgment was delivered on 13 July 2026 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 494/2023, Sheikh Tarique v. Union of India & Others.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was admitted to the MBBS course at NIMS University in 2010.
Throughout the duration of the course, he repeatedly appeared in supplementary and regular examinations but could not successfully complete the MBBS programme. According to the academic record reproduced by the Court, the appellant:
- Failed the First Professional Examination.
- Cleared different subjects over multiple supplementary examinations.
- Failed repeatedly in the Second Professional Examination.
- Cleared Final Professional Part-I only after several attempts.
- Continued failing Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynaecology in Final Professional Part-II.
Even after nearly fourteen years from admission, the appellant had still not completed the MBBS course. The Court reproduced the complete chronology of his examination history in the judgment.
Issue Before the Rajasthan High Court
The principal question raised by the appellant was whether the ten-year completion limit introduced under the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment), 2019 could be applied to students who had taken admission prior to the amendment.
The appellant argued that:
- At the time of his admission in 2010, there was no outer time limit for completing MBBS.
- Therefore, the ten-year cap introduced in 2019 could not operate retrospectively against him.
- He should be permitted to appear in the remaining examinations.
The appeal challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the Single Judge.
Interim Relief Granted by the Court
During the pendency of the appeal, the Division Bench granted the appellant one additional opportunity.
By an interim order dated 30 January 2024, the Court permitted him to appear in the MBBS Third Professional Part-II Examination, subject to the result being kept in a sealed cover.
The Court considered this opportunity despite the objections raised by the respondents and despite the regulatory time limit dispute.
Appellant Failed Once Again
During the final hearing, the respondents produced the appellant’s examination result dated 12 March 2024.
The result showed that the appellant had again failed the MBBS Third Professional Part-II Examination, even after obtaining the additional opportunity granted by the High Court.
The Court considered this development to be decisive while examining the relief sought.
Rajasthan High Court’s Findings
The Division Bench observed that even if the appellant’s legal argument regarding retrospective applicability of the 2019 Regulations were accepted, the appellant still remained unsuccessful in clearing the examination despite every opportunity available.
The Court held that the controversy regarding the ten-year cap had largely become academic because the appellant had failed even in the additional examination conducted pursuant to the Court’s interim order.
Sympathy Cannot Replace Academic Competence
One of the most important observations made by the Court was that the MBBS degree is not merely an academic qualification.
The Court observed that:
- A medical degree authorises a person to treat patients.
- Public safety must receive greater importance than individual hardship.
- Courts cannot overlook repeated inability to demonstrate the minimum professional competence required for medical practice.
- Financial hardship alone cannot justify judicial interference in such circumstances.
The Bench emphasised that permitting repeated unsuccessful candidates to continue indefinitely would be inconsistent with public interest and the regulatory framework governing medical education.
Court Refuses Further Indulgence
The Court ultimately concluded that no further indulgence could be granted.
It held that:
- The appellant had already received more opportunities than ordinarily available.
- His academic record itself justified refusal of further relief.
- Granting additional attempts would be contrary to the applicable medical education regulations.
- The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge required no interference.
Accordingly, the Special Appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Key Legal Principles
The judgment reiterates several important legal principles:
- Courts may exercise equitable jurisdiction but cannot compromise statutory standards governing professional education.
- Compassion cannot substitute minimum professional competence in medicine.
- Public interest outweighs individual hardship where patient safety is involved.
- Even where retrospective applicability of regulations is disputed, relief may still be declined if the candidate repeatedly fails despite additional opportunities.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Sheikh Tarique v. Union of India reinforces the principle that judicial discretion has limits when professional standards affecting public health are involved.
Although the Court acknowledged the appellant’s financial loss and prolonged efforts, it held that medical education demands demonstrated competence. Since the appellant failed repeatedly over nearly fourteen years—including after receiving an additional opportunity granted by the Court itself—the Division Bench declined to permit any further attempt and dismissed the appeal.
Note: This article is strictly based on the Rajasthan High Court judgment in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 494/2023 pronounced on 13.07.2026; all factual and legal points above cite the judgment text.